The morality of theft: Is it wrong?

Who decides what is right and wrong? Does it ultimately matter?

Moral nihilism tells us there is no right and wrong, only actions and consequences. What are you trying to achieve from your own perspective of life?

Property is that which you have control over. If you don't have control of it, it's not your property.

The problem with theft is that it is risky. Property owners will fight you for their property. You may gain new property successfully consistently but for how long? People perceive risk differently though which is clearly why some theft is reasonably visible in life. Some will be successful for the same reasons some people win a lottery. Even if you only prey on the weak, coalitions of property owners create complex social constructs such as a police service that will make it risky to steal from them. What about coalitions of the strong though?

Mutual gain creates powerful stable societies. People prosper with free association; constructs of property and rights for the less physically strong benefit the stronger equally.

The historically weak are no longer necessarily weak at all. Human progress and ingenuity in technology (e.g. farm machinery, weapons, locks) has acted as an equalising factor giving the less physically strong, especially women, a stronger and more valuable place in society; effectively granting them rights of equality.

Theft is not morally wrong since Occam's Razor tells us the concept of morals is not needed to explain it's undesirability. Successful societies correctly organise to make theft undesirable inline with its generally stated intentions; to live a long and prosperous life.

Would I steal if there was absolutely zero chance of getting caught? Probably not, my animals instincts inherited in my genes and instilled through nurture control my actions. Would a completely rational being steal? Probably not as they are always externalities to stealing even if you benefit there and then.