Liberalism holds the fallacy of the separation between “human rights” and “property right.” First, If man holds the right to true self-ownership then man must also have the right to sustain this ownership by grappling the resources around him. More simply, he must be able to own the ground below him. In order to sustain “human rights,” (the right to self-ownership and his body) he must have the property rights in the material world. I conclude that property rights are human rights. We see liberals want to maintain “human rights” but fall short of property rights. For example, to have the absolute right of a free press, it depends upon the human right of property rights to the news print. From this, I conclude that there are no human rights, that are inseparable from property rights. So lets take freedom of speech. The human right of free speech is nothing more than the right to hire a congregation hall from the owners. There is no extra “right to free speech” or press, beyond the extent of the property rights in the given case. So, any apparent conflicts that come up, will be resolved by the identification of property rights, not to look to limit the human right, but rather keep it absolute. So, how can this be applied to a real-life example? Lets take the classic example of an individual screaming “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Liberals will generally see that in the name of “public interest,” the “right to freedom of speech” must be curbed. This suggest that this right shall be tentative and relative rather than precise and absolute. But this is inherently flawed, the entire notion of property rights in this case is overlooked. If someone shouts “Fire!” in crowded theater, we have two possibilities (the shouter that is). This could be the owner (or one of his employees) or a customer, a patron. If we take the case of the owner, he has committed fraud on his customers. He made an exchange with the customers for their money, to a movie or play, but now he is disrupting it by shouting “Fire!” He has gone off his contractual obligation. He has stolen the property of the customers, their money, and has violated their property rights. Now we look at the other side, if the patron has shouted. The patron has breached the property rights of the owner, and the other guests. The patron has gained access to the theater on specific terms, a contractual obligation to not violate private property or disturb the show. By shouting “Fire!” he breaks the contractual obligation, and as said before, the property rights of the owner and other guests. We do not need to look to limit the individual's right of speech, in either of these cases. These rights remain absolute, but they are simply property rights. The individual who shouts, has committed a crime, but in no way is it because of his “freedom of speech” and in no way does it warrant this “right” to be restricted in the name of the public good. He is a criminal because he has violated the property rights of others.