Why did Kant argue that theft cannot be made into a universal rule?

Immanuel Kant argued that theft cannot be made into a universal rule because it is self-defeating and logically inconsistent. According to his categorical imperative, one must act only according to a maxim that one can simultaneously will to become a universal law.12

In the case of theft, if the act were generally approved or practiced as a universal law, the very concept of property would cease to exist. If everyone were permitted to take what they pleased, no one could claim ownership of anything as opposed to anyone else. Consequently, the notion of theft would become meaningless because it relies on the pre-existing existence of private property, which the act of universalized theft would destroy. Because reason dictates that a maxim must be consistent to be moral, and theft destroys the conditions necessary for its own execution, it fails the test of rationality and cannot be considered a valid moral rule.3