Property is theft.
 

Still you are yet to put together a cogent argument against this point.

There are several valid criticisms of this idea, of which my favorite is "fuck you, I am a greedy bastard and I like the idea of owning private property," but no-one has put one forth.

First, we have to understand that the phrase refers to land and excess resources, rather than possessions and use-rights. Understood in this, the proper fashion, one can see that theft does not in fact presuppose property in the sense that I am using property, and is clearly a valid proposition.

Yay more inane drivel brought to you by hasbinfat

So your telling me an agreement between two or more people to respect possession is theft?

So how do you build anything if no one owns land? Who has the right to build there?

we stole it from the injuns fair & square

No one was contending this. And he didn't state this. He's talking about barter or any form of property. Not currency. No where did he say money, fiat, or debt.

what about people who are not in on this agreement?

To be clear: the type of property i am referring to as theft is "private property." This is mostly distinguished as exclusionary "owned land" and exclusionary "excess resources," as opposed to "posessions" and "personal property," which can be seen as "things you need or have some use-right to" and "use-rights to land" and "things which are produced from the land you're using, within reason."

And yes, this comes mostly from Proudhom, but has been a major theme in philosophy in general since then, being added to and discussed by many. And no, I am not trolling, and by that I mean I am an artist.