Tag: Not So Crazy Libertarian Ideals

The Labor Movement

Today is Labor Day, the day we supposedly recognize the efforts of the labor movement for the current working conditions we now enjoy. What is lacking, in my opinion, in the discussion about the influence of the labor movement on today’s working environment is why the labor movement occurred at all. Ironically the labor movement was a result of centralization. I say it’s ironic because the labor movement is often tied heavily to collectivism, which is one of the most centralist philosophies out there.

The labor movement can be summarized as workers using various tactics in an attempt to coerce better working conditions out of their employers. Strikes, protests, and outright sabotage of employer facilities were used by employees to cause enough headaches for their employer to convince him or her to grant more compensation to the workers. Why were such coercive tactics chosen? Many inside the labor movement claim such tactics were necessary because the employees had no other option. Lacking the necessary capital to start a competing business the employees were, what the left often call, wage slaves. This claim isn’t false, but the labor movement ended up blaming the wrong people for their predicament.

Employers received a brunt of the blame while the labor movement attempted to use their actual enemy, the state, to achieve their desired ends. A major failure of the labor movement was incorrectly identifying the party responsible for the anticompetitive environment of the day. Why were workers cast into a life of dependency? The answer lies in the state’s centralization in the form of monopoly privileges to those in its favor. Benjamin Tucker identified four state monopolies: the money monopoly, the land monopoly, the tariff monopoly, and the patent monopoly.

The money monopoly requires individuals to acquire enough state currency to, at minimum, pay any taxes, fines, and fees issued to them by the state. Through legal tender laws the state is able to coerce individuals into using the state’s money. This greatly restricts options such as subsistence farming or trading goods other than state issued money. It is no coincidence that the first receivers of issued money are the banks and the banks tend to lend that money primarily to currently established employers. This ensures that individuals interested in acquiring state issued currency must get it from an employer. Effectively one becomes dependent on an employer for their very survival because failing to pay taxes, fines, and fees to the state in its issued money can result in dire consequences.

The land monopoly is, perhaps, one of the more consequential to workers. As is sits the state has a claimed monopoly on land and anyone wanting to obtain land must either purchase it from a current holder or the state. Even virgin soil claimed by no man cannot to put to use without the state’s permission. This creates a barrier to entry for anybody wanting to construct a building or extract resources. Whereas workers could have the option of claiming unowned land and extracting resources for sale, that option has been removed by the state. In order to enter a business one must have enough extra capital to purchase land from the state and comply with all of its regulations concerning the use of that land (zoning laws, for example, restrict the uses land can be put towards).

Then there is the tariff monopoly. By implementing artificial price increases on imported goods the state ensures two things: prices for affected goods remain artificially high and anybody wanting to involve themselves in the business of trade, which requires less capital than producing, are at a disadvantage. Another option is removed from workers seeking to make their own way instead of relying on wages received from their employer.

Finally we have the patent monopoly. The monopoly on ideas is perhaps second to the land monopoly when it comes to detrimentally affecting laborers. In the absence of patent monopolies an employee unsatisfied with his or her current working conditions could take their knowledge received from working their current job and use it to compete with their employer. Who better to compete with an automobiles producer than individuals who have been building automobiles? The threat of employees leaving to found competing businesses is a powerful motivator for employers. If the compensation offered to employees isn’t sufficient in their eyes they can depart to start a competing business, leaving the employer without trained employees and facing competition from trained competitors.

Through the state’s interfere in the free market the employers hold great advantage over employees. Entering the market is difficult so employees are left at the mercy of employers. Unions and politicians both exploit this fact to their favors. While the unions propagandize employees into believing their only option to get by in the world is to join together in dues paying unions the politicians propagandize employees into supporting their party during the next election cycle. Individuals running the unions are able to collect money from member dues for, effectively, schmoozing politicians. Meanwhile the politicians collect money from campaign contributions and free labor from campaign volunteers. Both the unions and the politicians work together to ensure the status quo that keeps them both employed is maintained.

Today refrain of thanking unions, the labor movement, and supposedly labor friendly politicians for the working conditions you now enjoy. Instead condemn the state from putting you at a disadvantage when it comes to negotiating with your employer for better working conditions. It is unlikely that the labor movement would have even been necessary if it wasn’t for the state’s claimed monopolies.

Why the Political Means Will always Fail

The political means of achieving liberty cannot succeed because the deck is stacked too thoroughly in the state’s favor. This isn’t surprising since the political means is the state’s tool and the house always has the advantage.

Many cards are in the state’s decks from election regulations to controlling who can and can’t run for office. One of the cards seldom discussed is the dependency card. Possibly the most powerful cards in the state’s desk, the dependency card allows the state to get popular support by making people dependent on it. Dependency comes in many forms including welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and state-enabled monetary gains. Ron Paul’s campaign wasn’t just a victim of Republican Party shenanigans, it was also a victim of state-enabled dependency on behalf of those working in the campaign:

Jesse Benton, married to Ron Paul’s granddaughter, ran the Paul campaign and ran it badly, failing to take advantage of opportunities in states like Virginia where Ron might have actually defeated Romney head-to-head if a minimum of support had been forthcoming from the national campaign. Benton explains to The Times how he has had to reject those who “dress in black, stand on a hill and say, ‘Smash the state.’” Benton, who reportedly has morphed into a multitasking paid political consultant and deal-maker with several businesses registered in his name including offices in Washington, D.C., generously paid himself $586,616 along the way while keeping the revolutionaries in check. He also confuses passion with craziness, possibly because he lacks the former. Most Paul supporters that I have encountered are completely rational and dedicated to turning our country around. They support the message of small government, non-interventionism overseas, constitutionalism, and sound money policies all because they make good sense. But I suppose Benton would argue that he is, as The Times adroitly puts it, “balancing pragmatism and principle.” Too bad pragmatism wins out every time for those who are ambitious.

Benton is a skilled operator when it comes to lining his own pockets. He understands that his salary, $586,616 in the case of this election, is dependent on the political process. Rational self-interest will lead him towards supporting the current state as it is allowing him to collect a six figure salary. Furthermore, he also has a reason to make other politicians, such as Mitt Romney, happy since Benton may find himself in the future employ of another politicians who he made nice with.

Ron Paul’s message, reducing the size and power of the state, directly threatens the income of people like Benton. Notice how Benton said he had to keep out those “dress in black, stand on a hill and say, ‘Smash the state.'” Obviously he was referring to anarchists such as myself. What’s a bigger threat to his salary than those of us who want to eliminate the creature that enables him to collect a six figure salary? Ron Paul, anarchists, and everybody else attempting to take power from the state are a direct threat to those who are dependent on the state.

How can anti-statists run a political campaign without worry about creating state dependents? They can’t. Once people begin deriving their income from the state or from activities that result from the existence of the state there’s little hope of stopping them from sabotaging an anti-statist campaign. Benton did an excellent job of stifling Paul’s campaign, probably because he was more concerned with setting himself up to enter the employ of other politicians than liberty.

Ending or just weakening the state is an extremely difficult task. The political means can’t accomplish either goal because the political means enriches people involved in the political process. It’s a tactic that is doomed from the beginning because it requires overcoming individuals’ self-interest. Since all human action is a result of self-interest you can see the problem.

Reclaiming Your Freedom

It’s always nice to see more people come to the understanding that the political means will never win us freedom. Instead we must reclaim our freedom by making the state irrelevant:

The only perceivable way I see to live free in an unfree world is to opt out. Civil disobedience and counter-economics not only are ways to make the world freer, but also allow one to be free in a world that otherwise isn’t. This strategy is known as Agorism.
Agorism is basically the idea of reducing your government footprint – to engage in trade that isn’t regulated or monitored by the government, to avoid funding the government as much as possible, etc. There’s a saying that goes “good people disobey bad laws”.

Agorism is fundamentally based on the premise that there is no legitimacy whatsoever to bad laws – laws that violate natural rights. A government’s unjust power lies solely in the acknowledging of it. By ignoring an illegitimate authority, you do not empower it. If enough people chose not to see authority from it, it becomes nothing more than a gang or mafia. And if enough people resist the thuggery perpetrated by this gang of thieves writ large? It will exist no more.

When you use the political means to advance liberty you are really asking the state to exploit you less. Everything the state has was obtained through exploitation and it is therefore against the state’s interest to exploit you less. It’s hard to imagine just how vast the state is. Every congressman’s, state inspector’s, state regulator’s, law enforcement officer’s, judge’s, attorney general’s, public prosecutor’s, capitol security guard’s, capitol janitor’s, state intern’s, etc. are paid with the money taken from you. Considering this do you honestly think the state is going to exploit you less? Do you think politicians are going to forsake their salary so you can live freer?

The only option available to us is to remove ourselves from the state as much as possible. Every dime we keep from the state is ten cents less available to pay state employees. Every transaction we make without involving the state is an entirely voluntary interaction between individuals. The more voluntary society becomes the more people will realize how unnecessary the state is. We must demonstrate how unnecessary the state is before public opinion will swing away from a positive view of the state. Doing that cannot be done using the political means since the political means validates the state in the eyes of the people.

Where Gun Control Advocate Should Start Supporting

Advocates of gun control always want to take away guns from private individuals but have no problem with the state keeping its guns. While they claim to support gun control because they oppose violence the exact opposite is true since the state is the most violent user of weaponry:

Let me say immediately that I too believe in gun control. However, I do so in the light of the knowledge that by far the largest number and the most powerful guns and other weapons are in the possession of the government. First and foremost, of course, the federal government, which has atomic and hydrogen bombs, as well as ballistic missiles with which to deliver them, fleets of warships, and thousands upon thousands of tanks, planes, artillery pieces, machine guns, and lesser weapons. State and local governments also possess considerable weaponry, though less than the federal government. But just the revolvers, rifles, shot guns, clubs, tear gas, and tasers in their possession are capable of causing serious injury and death, and frequently do so.

Moreover, the threat of deadly force is implicitly present in every law, regulation, ruling, or decree that emanates from any government office, at any level. The threat of such force is what compels obedience on the part of the citizens. Even such an innocuous offense as a parking violation is capable of resulting in death if a person persists in not paying the fine imposed and, when ultimately confronted with arrest, resists by physically defending himself.

[…]

It simply doesn’t occur to many people nowadays that government could be the source not only of massive economic ills but of human deaths on a scale dwarfing the deaths caused by the worst individual psychopaths. The number of murders attributable to governments around the world in the 20th century, including those resulting from government-caused famines in places such as the Ukraine and Communist China, is estimated to exceed 260 million. Of this total, Communist China is responsible for more than 76 million, the Soviet Union for almost 62 million, and Nazi Germany for almost 21 million (R.J. Rummel, Death By Government [New Brunswick, N.J., Transaction Publishers, 1994], note 1). Of particular note, approximately 2 million of the murders committed by Nazi Germany were in the form of mass shootings, similar in nature to those in Aurora and Oak Creek, but performed on a scale commensurate with the size of military units.

Even the most violent of gangs fail to hold a candle to the state when it comes to murder. If advocates of gun control really opposed violence they would be demanding the state surrender its arms before even looking at guns owned by private individuals. Needless to say, while the state maintains possession of its weapons private individuals must do the same. Without weapons we are at the mercy of the state and history has demonstrated that being at the mercy of the state is not good for one’s health.

Owing Society

A common claim among collectivists is that we owe society. The absurdity of this claim can be shown by simply asking one question: what is society? In specific terms society is a collection of individuals, but the collectivists like to anthropomorphize society. Instead of seeing society as merely a collection of individuals they see society as a separate life. When they say you owe society they imply that society is a single thing that is so obvious that it needn’t be defined. Unfortunately their claim falls apart as soon as you attempt to define it.

Let’s consider what society is. According to collectivists you derive value from everybody else in society, so we know that societies include more than one individual. This is where things get iffy. I derive value from a great many people. My computer was build by other people, my truck was built by other people, my bicycle was built by other people, etc. If I extrapolate further I have to acknowledge that my computer is the result of thousands of years of human innovation. It’s a machine that does calculations and math was heavily influenced by the Middle East (in fact we still use Arabic numerals today), it is built using electronic technologies that was greatly improved by the Japanese, it is built using rare-earth elements that come from China, and it uses an Intel process that could have been made in one of several fabrication plants (we’ll assume the United States facility for this example). If society is defined by the value I’ve received from other individuals then I must include the United States, the Middle East, China, and Japan in my society.

What we owe society depends on who you talk to. Some will claim we owe society schools, others will claim we owe roads, others will claim we owe healthcare, and some will claim we owe all of the above. Their mechanism for providing these things to society is taxation. A portion of my wealth is effectively taken to provide society with what I owe. If this is the case my payment to society is rather disturbing.

My tax dollars are used to bomb people in the Middle East, imprison people in the United States, and antagonize China. Money owed by previous generations was used to drop atomic weaponry on Japan. None of my tax money goes to build hospitals in the Middle Easy, roads in China, or schools in Japan. Effectively my tax dollars are primarily used to reign destruction down upon those who have provided value me. The only people I’ve benefitted from that gain any positive benefit from what I owe society are those residing in the United States and to countries that receive foreign aid from the United States.

I’m left having to ask many questions. Is society not composed of all the individuals I derive value from? Is the Middle East not part of my society? If it is why am I paying to bomb them? Do I owe them death? Is society defined by lines on a map? Perhaps my society is only the United States, perhaps it is only Minnesota, perhaps it is only Minneapolis. This is why the idea of us owing society is absurd, society is an undefined factor. We derive benefit from people all over the globe so society can’t be considered anything less than the entire world. If society is the entire world and I owe them anything positive then I should not pay taxes because much of that tax money goes to killing other people. If society is defined as only the United States then we it can’t be claimed that I owe society because I derive benefit from it as I derive benefit from people outside the United States as well. Basically, society is such a nebulous term that to claim I owe it anything is entirely meaningless.

Why Are You Begging Politicians for Freedom

Election season is fast approaching. As I type this people are currently gathered in Tampa, Florida to witness the crowning of the next Republican Party presidential candidate. Next week people will gather in Charlotte, North Carolina to witness the reaffirmation of Obama’s crowning at the Democratic Party presidential candidate. Americans all across the country will be demanding everybody vote for whichever presidential candidate they believe is the Chosen One.

If you listen to the political pundits and those involved in the political process this election will be the most important election of our lifetimes (even though it won’t be). Those backing the Republican Party will tell you about all the freedoms that will be taken from you if Obama wins the election. They will tell you that Obama, free of worry for another election (although during the next election they’ll tell you Obama plans to declare martial law an suspend elections), will now move forward with taking your guns and his socialist agenda. Meanwhile those backing the Democratic Party will tell you about all the freedoms that will be taken from you if Romney wins the election. They will warn you about the Republican Party’s war on women and how rights will be stripped form the American people in the name of God. People refusing to align with either major political party but still wanting to be involved in the political process will tell you to support whatever third-party they back because the two major parties are shit (which is true).

Here’s my question, why are you begging the state for your rights? You are born free, you don’t need permission to be free.

Some people reading this post may be confused about what I’m saying. They may be wondering why I’m saying those involved in the political process are begging for rights. My statement does a question: is the political process a form of begging? I’m here to tell you it is.

Let us first consider what the political process entails. In the United States we elect individuals to represent us at our local, state, and federal governments. The idea is that you send the people who best represent your values to fight for your political agenda. If you want to end the wars you try to elect a representative that is anti-war. If you want less gun control you try to elect a representative that is an advocate of gun rights. If you want to legalize abortions you try to elect a representative that is an advocate of women’s right to choose. What do all of these political issues have in common? If you accept decisions made through the political process all of the mentioned issues are areas where you believe the state has authority.

Let’s consider the topic of abortion for a moment. Proponents of legalizing abortion will generally gravitate to the Democratic Party while opponents of legalizing abortion will generally gravitate towards the Republican Party. Proponents will claim that having the option of legal abortions is a right whereas opponents will claim that abortions are an initiation of force against a fetus. Both sides are begging the state to make a decision regarding abortion. Does the state have a right to make a decision regarding abortion? If you accept the state’s decision, no matter what that decision is, you are answering in the affirmative. Proponents that get enraged when the state decides to prohibit abortions and react by campaigning for different representatives are saying they accept the fact that the state has authority over abortion, they disagree with the state’s decision, and they beg the state to change its mind. Why beg? Why not ignore the state? If the state rules abortions to be illegal and you believe they should be legal why not help those wanting abortions to get abortions? Why not get doctors on board who will perform abortions in secret? Why not help those wanting abortions to fly to a country where abortions are legal? Why accept the state’s decision when you can spit in its face and tell it to sod off?

Agorism is a fancy term for living free. I’m an agorist because I don’t recognize the state’s authority over my life. Begging for permission to live free is no longer in my deck the cards. Are you involved in the political process? If so, why? Do you accept the state’s decisions? If not, why give your time and money to the state through the political process? Why not put all that time and money into things you enjoy? Why not live free?

Destroying Incentives to Provide Services

What happens when a business owner, who requires the state’s permission to increase his prices, petitions to the state to increase his prices and is denied? He retires:

David Bryson, president of Champion’s Auto Ferry, blamed the MPSC’s refusal to grant a requested fare increase for his decision to retire and close the ferry service at a yet to be determined date.

[…]

“Our tariff was rejected even though we submitted detailed evidence that the traffic volumes were down 8% and that it has been almost 4 years since the last price adjustment,” Bryson wrote.

He said the commission refused to allow the ferry company to include pensions, leases, employee bonuses and legal costs in its operating expenses.

[…]

In his letter, Bryson also blasted the agency for publishing “Champion’s sensitive and detailed financial information on the internet, even though it was shared with you on a confidential basis.

“As a result of the Commission’s practice of applying ever more burdensome utility rules and standards to Champion, we find that we are essentially being regulated out of business and there is no longer any incentive to continue to provide this non-subsidized transportation service.”

Imagine that, when an individual is no longer able to make a profit on his work he no longer has an incentive to do that work. I’m sure Bryson’s announced retirement came as a shock to the regulators. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if the regulators make a statement blasting Bryson for his “greed” and condemning him for taking away a “right” from the people he served. As much as I don’t like Ayn Rand’s philosophy she really did call it when it came to regulators destroying businesses.

Yesterday Demonstrated Why Nothing Will be Achieved Using the Political Means

Yesterday, the Republican National Convention (RNC) demonstrated why nothing will every be achieved using the political means. Big wigs in the Republican Party finally demonstrated the extent they’re willing to go in order to keep out influence from “unpure” sources. Everything came apart when the rules were unanimously passed, and by unanimously I mean not at all unanimously. The rules, which prevented the entire Maine delegation from voting among changing other things to the establishment’s favor, was performed by a voice vote. I was listening to the convention via C-SPAN (yes, I have the C-SPAN app on my phone for these extremely entertaining events) and there was no way one could tell whether the yays or nays were in the majority but the Chairman declared the yays victorious and ignored all calls for division.

Slamming through rules in such a manner is made easier when you are able to keep a large portion of your opposition away from the convention. According to an e-mail sent out by the Ron Paul campaign, the entire Virginia delegation, which was planning to make a move against the new rules, was delayed when their bus was “lost”:

Morton Blackwell, a longtime conservative activist and RNC Rules Committee expert, found himself indefinitely detained – along with the rest of the Virginia delegation.

The RNC’s bus driver responsible for transporting delegates somehow “got lost” for well over an hour until a critical Rules Committee meeting adjourned.

Blackwell and the Virginia delegation were heading up the efforts to defeat new RNC rules proposed by Washington, D.C.-based insider attorneys.

This news was also reported elsewhere.

Calling it a nominating convention would be inaccurate, it was really a crowning of an already chosen king. As I noted previously, Ron Paul wasn’t allowed to speak at the convention because he was unwilling to endorse Romney (probably because Paul was running for the nomination himself). It seems nobody from Paul’s camp was allowed to speak because every speech was basically a talk about how great the Republican Party’s messiah, Romney, is. I think the terms religious experience and circle jerk would be fitting descriptions.

Needless to say the RNC went exactly as I expected. Rules were ignored, dissidence was crushed, and Romney was crowned emperor. Some lessons can only be learned the hard way, and yesterday’s crowning of Romney was one of those lessons. The lesson was simple: nothing can be changed through political means and if one does want to achieve change they must work through other means. Politics is made up primarily of sociopaths who want to hold power over their fellow man. These people are willing to go to any extent to obtain and hold onto that power. Thinking you can play fairly against them is naive.

It’s painful to see friends learn lessons the hard way but I think better things are in store now that the pain is over. Instead of wasting time campaigning for sociopaths, instead of donating absurd amounts of money to people who merely want to rule you, it’s time to ignore the state and use economics to achieve change. Start living free today, join the agorist “revolution.”

Bribery

I’ve become convinced that the way to make an immoral act moral in the United States is to add a layer of obfuscation. Advocates of gun control often claim that shooting another human being, even in self-defense, is immoral yet having the police shoot an aggressor is moral. Mugging another person is an immoral act yet taking their money by voting to increase their taxes is moral. Bribery is treated no differently.

In much of the world bribery is considered a fact of life but here in the United States it’s viewed as an immoral act, at least if you bribe somebody directly. When you’re pulled over by a police officer and attempt to bribe them they can arrest you for that act alone or suffer later consequences if they accept your bribe. This is interesting because that same police officer can write you a ticket and a ticket is nothing more than a state sanctioned bribe. People don’t pay tickets because they feel they deserved to be punished for a transgression, they pay tickets to keep themselves from being locked in a cage. Effectively paying a ticket is nothing more than bribing the state in the hopes it won’t lock you in a cage. How does the act of bribery suddenly become moral when a layer of obfuscation is introduced? I would much rather be able to bribe a police officer directly.

Consider what a police officer is likely do with bribe money. In all likelihood a police officer is going to use that bribe money for personal satisfaction. He may use it to buy a boat, feed his family, or acquire some hookers and blow. None of these things negatively impact my life, unlike the purchased made by the state with bribe money. When the state obtains bribe money it use it to buy more police cars, hire more officers, and build more cages. Like the police officer, the state spends bribe money on personal satisfaction. Unlike the police officer, the state’s personal satisfaction negatively impacts my life. With more officers and more police cars available the chances that I can be issued a ticket go up and an increase in the number of cages allows the state to threaten more people with incarceration.

Why is bribery immoral when done directly but moral when done indirectly? It seems the amount of damage caused by direct bribes is less than the damage caused by indirect bribes. If I’m going to be forced to pay bribes at least let me pay those bribes to the entity less likely to cause more harm to my life.

Assaulting Property Right

An interesting claim made by anarcho-communists is that the state is necessary to maintain private property and if the state were abolished private property would go with it (which they see as a positive thing). The opposite is true, the state is the biggest infringer of private property:

Environmentalists and mining companies are fighting over the fate of the remote Klappan Valley in northern British Columbia. The different sides struggle for government approval of their particular plans, but almost no one fully acknowledges the property rights of the first owners of the valley, the indigenous Tahltan people.

[…]

By Canadian law, the Tahltan do not strictly own the valley. This is because their claim to it predates the existence of the Canadian state — and the government officials who conquered or negotiated treaties with most of the rest of Canada’s indigenous people never came into most of what is now British Columbia (BC).

We see this time and time again, property rights are usurped by the state to the benefit of itself and its cronies. The case of the Tahltan people is a perfect example of this. Mining companies want to extract resources on the land that has been inhabited by the Tahltan since before European settlers arrived. As the rightful owners of the land who use its natural resources to survive the Tahltan have a vested interest in preserving the land. They also have an interest in selling mining rights. Needless to say they are willing to let mining happen on their property so long as there is a balance between mineral extraction and land preservation.

The mining companies have little interest in preserving the land as it’s not theirs so they turned to the Canadian government. Even though the Canadian government didn’t come into existence until well after the Tahltan settled the land the government claims complete authority over the territory. Because of this claimed authority the mining companies know that they can take minerals from the Tahltan land without having to concern themselves with extracting said minerals in a manner that the Tahltan agree with. In this case the property rights of the Tahltan are being overthrown by the Canadian government for the benefit of mining companies.

This is what the state does. Anarcho-communists are incorrect when they claim the state is required to maintain property rights. As an entity that exists solely off of expropriating wealth from individuals the state is the biggest infractor against property rights. In fact the state is willing to go so far as to use violence against property owners:

The Tahltan did not believe their elected government had the right to give away their property, so they set up a blockade on the only road into the Klappan Valley. They let in tourists and anybody else they felt would not harm their turf, but they blocked out all mining equipment.

On, September 16, 2005, at the behest of Fortune Minerals, the Mounties rolled in and arrested 15 of the protestors, 9 of whom were elders.

Even though the Tahltan were acting in a nonviolent manner, they were simply refusing to allow mining equipment to enter their property, the state moved in with armed thugs to arrest the protesters so that the mining companies could enter and extract the resources sold to them by the Canadian government. This was merely a repeat of history though, the state has always existed by violating the property rights of others and, in fact, must violate the property rights of others in order to exist.