Bill Bartlett: Well that's a valid way to look at it. But an equally valid way of looking at it, is that enforcement of property laws is merely a matter of the enforcing the rules which a majority of people in that society have consented to.
It all depends on your perspective. ;-) Been on the wrong side of the law a few times myself, so I can see both sides. But an important point to understand is that most people tend to by and large obey the rules protecting property rights, most of the time, without the need for constant supervision by armed cops.
And if that changes, which is to say if the overwhelming majority of people withdraw their consent and decide that a radical change in property relations is in order, then the existing ruling class will find that their cops and armies will be little protection. Cops and soldiers are also people. They aren't robots.
So fundamentally, it is a mistake to believe that existing unequal property relations are maintained by brute force. Such force is necessary to maintain some semblance of order in a chaotic dog-eat dog social system, where some people are driven to desperation and others are simply inclined to take short-cuts. As you would expect.
But this is not the basis of the system. Just a necessary part of the governance of such an unfair system.
^^^^^^ CB: I don't think "consent" is the right word. It's wrong in the way social contract theory is wrong. Almost nobody voluntarily consents. From childhood the vast majority of people are trained into accepting cultural norms, including the principles of wage-labor, and in part with literal corporal punishment for many. Peaceful coercion is an oxymoron.