# § 2: Universal Consent No Justification of Property explained — What Is Property?

> Chapter companion for What Is Property? by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

## What happens

Proudhon argues that universal consent cannot legitimize property, as such a contract would be null in justice, since man cannot alienate labor or liberty. He contends that if consent were given, it would require reciprocal surrenders, leading back to equality, and that any violation of equality breaks the compact, rendering property usurpation.

## Themes in this chapter

### Critique of Law and Government

Proudhon rejects the legitimacy of a social contract that would justify property, calling it null in justice.

### Equality and Justice

The chapter argues that any valid consent would require reciprocal surrenders, leading back to equality, and that property violates this.

## Character check-ins

### Pierre Joseph Proudhon

Author and primary voice arguing against universal consent as a justification for property.

### Grotius

Cited as one who might draft a contract of universal consent, but Proudhon rejects its validity.

### Montesquieu

Mentioned alongside Grotius and Rousseau as a potential drafter of a consent-based contract.

### Jean Jacques Rousseau

Referenced as a theorist of the social compact, which Proudhon critiques.

### Say

Quoted earlier; his ambiguous language on property and consent is the starting point of Proudhon's critique.

## Key lines

> Man can no more give up labor than liberty. Now, to recognize the right of territorial property is to give up labor, since it is to relinquish the means of labor; it is to traffic in a natural right, and divest ourselves of manhood.

Proudhon asserts that labor and liberty are inalienable, so accepting property rights means surrendering the means of labor, which is akin to selling a natural right and losing one's humanity.

_Highlights the core argument that property inherently violates fundamental human capacities._

> if, in the terms of the social compact, property has equality for its condition, at the moment when equality ceases to exist, the compact is broken and all property becomes usurpation.

If the social contract requires equality as a condition for property, then once inequality appears, the contract is void and all property is illegitimate.

_Summarizes Proudhon's logical conclusion that property cannot be justified by consent without equality._

## Links

- HTML: https://www.betterreads.online/discover/what_is_property_se/chapters/2-universal-consent-no-justification-of-property
- Book: https://www.betterreads.online/discover/what_is_property_se
- All chapters: https://www.betterreads.online/discover/what_is_property_se/chapters