I'm not sure things are as zero-sum as you imply - he's not saying Paris can't have her trust fund. > There's no consistent way to assert the right to violate

I'm not sure things are as zero-sum as you imply - he's not saying Paris can't have her trust fund. > There's no consistent way to assert the right to violate property rights, without abolishing property altogether. Is this a false dichotomy? It seem like defining it as a 'violation of property rights' that 'abolishes property altogether' renders things completely implausible by pushing it to it's extremes.