>If a guy sells me a stolen bike, I still acquired the bike through fair means.

>So if the state says I can build my own house on stolen land, that is still my own house.

>The White House is made with stolen money and therefore stolen property.

>The workers that build the white house still worked hard and deserve their salary.

Not, really. You just violated the justice in transference principle. You can't trade for something with someone who doesn't own it. He can't transfer the ownership to you as he doesn't have it.But let's say that you receiving stolen property is just. Then all state property is also acquired justly. The initial appropriation was violent (so the justice in appropriation principle was violated), but the transference of that property from and towards countless generations was not any more unjust than any other form of inheritance.Now there is an argument that can be made against most inheritance in general from a just processes standpoint, but I assume you wouldn't accept it anyway, so there's no point in bringing it in the conversation.That's not how theories of justice work. Either the appropriation is or it isn't unjust. You can't appeal to the authority of the state when it fits your prefered outcomes.See, here's the contradiction, you just said that the state gave someone the right to appropriate property without homesteading it, now you're saying that the state can not do the same with someone else's proprety. Why? The taxed sum can not be considered stolen if the just property distribution is decided by the state.Now you are shifting the debate from non-patterned procedural distribution (I can justly own unowned property I homesteaded or owned property that I traded for) to patterned just-deserts distribution.