Now, D is poor, while C is rich; so that at the end of two or three years D is ruined by this intolerable competition, and C has complete control of the market.

Can the proprietor D get any redress from the proprietor C?
Can he bring a suit against him to recover his business and property?
No; for D could have done the same thing, had he been the richer of the two.
On the same ground, the large proprietor A may say to the small proprietor B: "Sell me your field, otherwise you shall not sell your wheat,"-- and that without doing him the least wrong, or giving him ground for complaint.

So that A can devour B if he likes, for the very reason that A is stronger than B.Consequently, it is not the right of property which enables A and C to rob B and D, but the right of might.
By the right of property, neither the two neighbors A and B, nor the two merchants C and D, could harm each other.

They could neither dispossess nor destroy one another, nor gain at one another's expense.

The power of invasion lies in superior strength.
But it is superior strength also which enables the manufacturer to reduce the wages of his employees, and the rich merchant and well-stocked proprietor to sell their products for what they please.