"You can only honourably own as an individual what you can use yourself as an individual. You can own the house you live in. When you make someone pay you for living in a house you don't lve in, that is a kind of stealing. That is the distinction Proudhon was making when saying both "Property is Freedom" and at the same time "Property is Theft". "

This is so simplistic that there's no kind way to put it -- it's silly.

It is "property as theory" and has little basis in the reality of property (what? it's limited to real estate?) or ownership. It fails utterly to take into account labor (a very meaningful moral element to ownership) or risk (another meaningful element to ownership and investment).

It fails, in addition, to take into consideration the free agency of individuals to NOT chose to live in a house one may own but not live in.

And stealing? From whom? Those who live in a house they do not own are merely completing a transaction, the likes of which free people enter into every day. They may not want to own the house in which they live -- for many reasons. And the other side of the transactional coin is that the property owner has the community obligation to maintain the property if he wants it to remain both his and an investment from which he, with his risk and labor might make his own way in life.

Have a nice day.