I can assure you my morality is 100% legitimate.

I believe for instance that property is theft, as Prodhoun proclaimed.

The fact that we see housing as an investment is part, no, probably most of the problem.

I frankly just cannot this seriously. And I think the vast vast majority of people in the world would find Prodhoun's view of property to be laughably unworkable, or at best just undesirable.

I do not believe people whom say property is theft as it would mean I can randomly take your personal items as they're not your property, since you don't believe in the concept.

But should you genuinely believe that and walk the talk, fair enough. I'm more of a pragmatist myself.

You would have to read Proudhoun an Anarchism to understand what is meant by the saying.

By "property", Proudhon referred to a concept regarding land property that originated in Roman law: the sovereign right of property, the right of the proprietor to do with his property as he pleases, "to use and [to] abuse," so long as in the end he submits to state-sanctioned title. Proudhon contrasts the supposed right of property with the rights (which he considered valid) of liberty, equality, and security. Proudhon was clear that his opposition to property did not extend to exclusive possession of labor-made wealth.

Private property is a construct of the state, which is itself either just fenced goods stolen from the powerless or the commons.

It's a social norm we maintain, with some limitations, because it's useful. It's not sacred.