We're talking about "property" as if we own the buildings we live in, but even in the example given in the OP that wasn't the case: Iain lived there but (presumably) it was owned by someone else; it was his property that was stolen, but it wasn't his property that was broken into, he merely resided there. Butjam asked me to define 'rich.' Well, perhaps we could define it as those who own property they don't live in and generate an income from (this would include landlords and certainly large businesses). I think it's useful to make a distinction between these two types of property: things one owns that are personal possessions (Iain's laptop, for example) and property one makes a profit from simply by being in ownership of it (such as the house Iain's landlord owned). In my opinion the latter is inherently theft anyway - it only exists as property because it was taken through violence and exploitation in the first place. To take back from these people isn't theft but appropriation. Given that, should landlords be allowed to evict squatters? Or should squatters be allowed to hang landlords from the banisters?