I've just had a kneejerk "hard disagree" reaction to this.
On reflection, I suspect it's because we might be approaching both currencies and property in different manners.
I believe that currency - the very strict sense of something that all relevant parties agree to - can be a useful tool for tracking obligations. I have no ties to *government-issued* currencies, however. Just a unit of measure, I don't massively care what it is, and I absolutely do not believe that it needs to be valuable "in and of itself"
Likewise with "property" - property has a lot of different definitions, but in the sense that my house and land is my own, and that it's of a "reasonable" enough size (ie. not stupidly large to the point that I'm excluding others from reasonable use), then the concept has value.
Is your view on both different to mine?
(I live in a country where "guns" are not a thing in the same sense as the US, so allow that as well, my conception might be a little different. Memory serves, you're US-based?)