You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
"'theft' as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property."
Property can be transferred - You could buy something at a store and that item's ownership has been legally transferred to you. Ergo, it isn't theft.
The creation and subsequent ownership of Intellectual Property is not theft.
"Theft" presumes that property was wrongfully acquired in the first place, hence nothing can ever be stolen if all ownership is wrongful to begin with. This would mean nature is always immoral.
Theft however presuposes property: there can be no theft of something that is not property. Ergo, the contention is self-contradictory.
All private property used for personal gain arises from involuntary dispossession, i.e the Enclosure Act and dispossession of Native American land.
By that logic I can go to a beaver's dam and systematically take all of his sticks - and it is morally justified? I can take all the sticks a beaver is using for his future or present family and dump them on a rival beavers dam. Under your OA this is the height of morality, impeccable behavior.
Property is only theft, because you may inherit it to your children. If your property ceased to exist the moment you die it would be ok. Right now you may own something you never worked for. Poverty/wealth are determined mainly by birth. Its like the divine right of kings. Not justifiable.
Property is in essence the violent theft of others of the use of an object.
Property is the origin of all social unequalities.
Private property is an aspect of a social formation which is not natural, involving the appropriation of the commons for private use. Humans have lived for hundreds of thousand of years without the enforcement of the modern concept of property.
Tracing the right of property back to its source, one infallibly arrives at usurpation. However, theft is only punished because it violates the right of property; but this right is itself nothing in origin but theft.