On the one hand, we must answer the question as to the true nature and origin of rights.
Do they exist in us, in nature, or in some combination of the two.
A singers voice for instance can be used to exercise her human right to free speech, but how is this different than her property right to the fruit of her labor, a recording of her singing for instance?
We contend that there is no difference, that a distinction is meaningless, that all human rights are, in fact, property rights.
Instead, it is a recognition of the property rights inherent in the other patrons of the theatre, and the theatre owner.
In the Rothbardian view, the problems associated with protecting and enforcing human rights are erased when we properly define and enforce property rights.
If we are to take the viewpoint that there are two distinct classes of rights possessed by humans, we must look to one key place for support: their origin.
Our human rights can be seen as a subsidiary set of rights whose existence could not be without that of property rights.
Rothbard provided the example of an individuals right to free speech in the case of falsely yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre.
The fact that an individual has no right to do this is not a limitation on their right to free speech.