Key Arguments

• He cites 'the struggle between colonial and native sugars' as 'a striking example of this impossibility of property,' noting that if left to themselves 'the native manufacturer will be ruined by the colonist.'
• To 'maintain the beetroot, the cane must be taxed: to protect the property of the one, it is necessary to injure the property of the other,' i.e., protection of one industry’s property directly harms another’s.
• He stresses that 'in one way or another, property has to be violated,' which he calls 'The most remarkable feature of this business' and laments that it receives 'the least attention.'
• Imposing on each industry 'a proportional tax, so as to preserve a balance in the market,' attacks property doubly: 'On the one hand, your tax interferes with the liberty of trade; on the other, it does not recognize equality of proprietors,' since both the freedom of exchange and equal treatment of proprietors are compromised.
• If the state 'Indemnif[ies] the beetroot, you violate the property of the taxpayer,' because public funds taken to subsidize one group reduce the wealth of others.
• If the nation 'Cultivate[s] the two varieties of sugar at the nation’s expense, just as different varieties of tobacco are cultivated,—you abolish one species of property,' since sugar production becomes a public enterprise rather than a private property-based one.
• He concludes that each conceivable policy path—laissez-faire, protective taxation, equal taxation, indemnification, or nationalization—entails some violation, restriction, or abolition of property, showing that property cannot be consistently maintained in a complex economy.

Source Quotes

Therefore, without force, property is powerless against property, since without force it has no power to increase; therefore, without force, property is null and void. Historical Comment.⁠—The struggle between colonial and native sugars furnishes us a striking example of this impossibility of property. Leave these two industries to themselves, and the native manufacturer will be ruined by the colonist.

Historical Comment.⁠—The struggle between colonial and native sugars furnishes us a striking example of this impossibility of property. Leave these two industries to themselves, and the native manufacturer will be ruined by the colonist. To maintain the beetroot, the cane must be taxed: to protect the property of the one, it is necessary to injure the property of the other. The most remarkable feature of this business is precisely that to which the least attention is paid; namely, that, in one way or another, property has to be violated.

To maintain the beetroot, the cane must be taxed: to protect the property of the one, it is necessary to injure the property of the other. The most remarkable feature of this business is precisely that to which the least attention is paid; namely, that, in one way or another, property has to be violated. Impose on each industry a proportional tax, so as to preserve a balance in the market, and you create a maximum price⁠—you attack property in two ways.

The most remarkable feature of this business is precisely that to which the least attention is paid; namely, that, in one way or another, property has to be violated. Impose on each industry a proportional tax, so as to preserve a balance in the market, and you create a maximum price⁠—you attack property in two ways. On the one hand, your tax interferes with the liberty of trade; on the other, it does not recognize equality of proprietors. Indemnify the beetroot, you violate the property of the taxpayer.

On the one hand, your tax interferes with the liberty of trade; on the other, it does not recognize equality of proprietors. Indemnify the beetroot, you violate the property of the taxpayer. Cultivate the two varieties of sugar at the nation’s expense, just as different varieties of tobacco are cultivated⁠—you abolish one species of property.

Indemnify the beetroot, you violate the property of the taxpayer. Cultivate the two varieties of sugar at the nation’s expense, just as different varieties of tobacco are cultivated⁠—you abolish one species of property. This last course would be the simpler and better one; but, to induce the nations to adopt it, requires such a cooperation of able minds and generous hearts as is at present out of the question.

Key Concepts

• Historical Comment.⁠—The struggle between colonial and native sugars furnishes us a striking example of this impossibility of property.
• Leave these two industries to themselves, and the native manufacturer will be ruined by the colonist. To maintain the beetroot, the cane must be taxed: to protect the property of the one, it is necessary to injure the property of the other.
• The most remarkable feature of this business is precisely that to which the least attention is paid; namely, that, in one way or another, property has to be violated.
• Impose on each industry a proportional tax, so as to preserve a balance in the market, and you create a maximum price⁠—you attack property in two ways. On the one hand, your tax interferes with the liberty of trade; on the other, it does not recognize equality of proprietors.
• Indemnify the beetroot, you violate the property of the taxpayer.
• Cultivate the two varieties of sugar at the nation’s expense, just as different varieties of tobacco are cultivated⁠—you abolish one species of property.

Context

Historical Comment attached to the Ninth Proposition, where Proudhon analyzes state policy dilemmas around colonial cane sugar and domestic beet sugar to demonstrate that any regulatory choice necessarily infringes on some form of property, thereby illustrating the structural 'impossibility of property' in commercial legislation.