[noduerme]

Based on your definition, theft of indigenous land would be fine since there were no property laws to violate.

Yet it was not fine.

That's because theft is a violation of universal moral laws. Everyone knows it is wrong. Justifying it is an immoral barbarism.

[Teever]

How do you feel about the freedom to roam that is codified in some areas?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

The concept of property rights is a bit more fluid than you think.

[sheepdestroyer]

"La propriété, c'est le vol." Proudhon : Property is theft.

It's not quite morally universal that a right to unlimited property exists.

[burnished]

I'm curious how you read that as an endorsement for that sort of behavior?

Your 'but indigenous peoples' reeks of point scoring behavior. If you wanted to explore that topic you'd be more specific. If you were engaging in good faith you might assume that I'm generally opposed to genocide. Taking an abstract point about theft and property laws to accuse me of endorsing genocide ('immoral barbarism') is not good behavior.

[noduerme]

I didn't read it as an endorsement of theft, but defining theft as malum prohibitum, contingent on a time, place and legal system, is a flawed argument. Laws can be wrong. But the fact that a bad law or an unjust system bans theft does not make theft ok. Lots of bad laws enable theft (e.g. those enacted as post-justification for land theft), which also doesn't make it ok. No bad law can sanctify what is morally and universally wrong, and no rebellion against a bad law can sanctify it either. When we say a law is bad we mean: There is a larger moral framework in which it is unjust. Therefore the same is true in resisting bad laws: Resistance can't justify morally repugnant behavior. That was the point I was trying to make.

I didn't pick indigenous land theft to score points, but only because it's the most obvious example of some type of unregulated theft still being universally recognizable as wrong - and it's frequently brought up by many of the same people who make the case that other types of theft are in the service of justice.