You quoted Proudhon who considered none-natural-resource classes of property theft as well. But your argument is also absurd: >What I did claim is property rig

You quoted Proudhon who considered none-natural-resource classes of property theft as well. But your argument is also absurd: >What I did claim is property rights over any scarce resource inherently reduces the liberty of others. All property is scarce, which is why it has market value. You're saying people have no right to the property they create, if it happens to be scarce (which it always is). Maybe you have some vague arbitrary definition of "scarce" that allows you to claim that the property rights you exercise over your possessions are legitimate, while the property rights of those with much more than you are not.