Key Arguments

• He defines government as 'public economy, the supreme administrative power over public works and national possessions,' and then models the nation as 'a vast society in which all the citizens are stockholders,' each logically entitled to a voice proportional to their share.
• Under a regime of property there is 'great inequality between the shares of the stockholders; therefore, one may have several hundred votes, while another has only one,' so that a very rich proprietor would rightly claim hundreds or thousands of votes if political rights truly followed property.
• He argues that if each citizen is at least 'enrolled for at least one national share, which entitles him to one vote,' then, to respect property, 'each elector shall have as many votes as he has shares; as is the case in commercial associations,' otherwise the nation would be usurping the administration of private property.
• From this he concludes that 'In a country where property exists, equality of electoral rights is a violation of property,' because equal suffrage ignores unequal proprietary stakes in the national "stock".
• If political sovereignty is made proportional to property ('if each citizen’s sovereignty must and ought to be proportional to his property'), then 'the small stock holders are at the mercy of the larger ones,' who can, 'as soon as they choose, make slaves of the former,' implying an inherent tendency toward domination.
• He hyperbolically describes the logical extremes of this domination—large proprietors being able to 'marry them at pleasure, take from them their wives, castrate their sons, prostitute their daughters, throw the aged to the sharks,' illustrating that unequal proprietary sovereignty reduces the many to a servile status.
• He points to Great Britain as a real-world example 'in such a condition' where a people ('John Bull') prefers servitude over liberty and equality, indicating that advanced proprietary societies already exhibit this tyranny.
• He summarizes that 'Property is incompatible with political and civil equality; then property is impossible,' making incompatibility with equality a decisive reason for calling property 'impossible'.

Source Quotes

Sixth Proposition Property is impossible, because it is the Mother of Tyranny. What is government?

What is government? Government is public economy, the supreme administrative power over public works and national possessions. Now, the nation is like a vast society in which all the citizens are stockholders.

Government is public economy, the supreme administrative power over public works and national possessions. Now, the nation is like a vast society in which all the citizens are stockholders. Each one has a deliberative voice in the assembly; and, if the shares are equal, has one vote at his disposal. But, under the regime of property, there is great inequality between the shares of the stockholders; therefore, one may have several hundred votes, while another has only one.

Each one has a deliberative voice in the assembly; and, if the shares are equal, has one vote at his disposal. But, under the regime of property, there is great inequality between the shares of the stockholders; therefore, one may have several hundred votes, while another has only one. If, for example, I enjoy an income of one million; that is, if I am the proprietor of a fortune of thirty or forty millions well invested, and if this fortune constitutes 1/30,000 of the national capital⁠—it is clear that the public administration of my property would form 1/30,000 of the duties of the government; and, if the nation had a population of thirty-four millions, that I should have as many votes as one thousand one hundred and thirty-three simple stockholders.

But the illustrious orator ought at the same time to demand that each elector shall have as many votes as he has shares; as is the case in commercial associations. For to do otherwise is to pretend that the nation has a right to dispose of the property of individuals without consulting them; which is contrary to the right of property. In a country where property exists, equality of electoral rights is a violation of property.

For to do otherwise is to pretend that the nation has a right to dispose of the property of individuals without consulting them; which is contrary to the right of property. In a country where property exists, equality of electoral rights is a violation of property. Now, if each citizen’s sovereignty must and ought to be proportional to his property, it follows that the small stock holders are at the mercy of the larger ones; who will, as soon as they choose, make slaves of the former, marry them at pleasure, take from them their wives, castrate their sons, prostitute their daughters, throw the aged to the sharks⁠—and finally will be forced to serve themselves in the same way, unless they prefer to tax themselves for the support of their servants.

In a country where property exists, equality of electoral rights is a violation of property. Now, if each citizen’s sovereignty must and ought to be proportional to his property, it follows that the small stock holders are at the mercy of the larger ones; who will, as soon as they choose, make slaves of the former, marry them at pleasure, take from them their wives, castrate their sons, prostitute their daughters, throw the aged to the sharks⁠—and finally will be forced to serve themselves in the same way, unless they prefer to tax themselves for the support of their servants. In such a condition is Great Britain today.

But you, bonhomme Jacques? Property is incompatible with political and civil equality; then property is impossible. Historical Comments.⁠— 1.

Key Concepts

• Sixth Proposition Property is impossible, because it is the Mother of Tyranny.
• Government is public economy, the supreme administrative power over public works and national possessions.
• the nation is like a vast society in which all the citizens are stockholders. Each one has a deliberative voice in the assembly; and, if the shares are equal, has one vote at his disposal.
• under the regime of property, there is great inequality between the shares of the stockholders; therefore, one may have several hundred votes, while another has only one.
• For to do otherwise is to pretend that the nation has a right to dispose of the property of individuals without consulting them; which is contrary to the right of property.
• In a country where property exists, equality of electoral rights is a violation of property.
• if each citizen’s sovereignty must and ought to be proportional to his property, it follows that the small stock holders are at the mercy of the larger ones; who will, as soon as they choose, make slaves of the former, marry them at pleasure, take from them their wives, castrate their sons, prostitute their daughters, throw the aged to the sharks
• Property is incompatible with political and civil equality; then property is impossible.

Context

Opening of the Sixth Proposition, where Proudhon sets out a political-constitutional argument that, given the legal principle of property, genuine equality of rights is impossible; he uses a shareholder analogy and suffrage reasoning to show that property structurally produces oligarchic tyranny.