You confuse change with "evolution". There is nothing more "evolved" about our society versus that of Jefferson or Locke's--it is just different. And Locke's philosophy (like any philosophical system) is timeless. His system is built on axioms (like any philosophical system) and if you accept those axioms, the rest follows logically. Clearly, you don't accept his axiom that property is the most fundamental of all rights... You certainly have that choice... and the logical result is that anyone who wishes to can take your property without consequence--after all you wouldn't be willing to use violence to prevent them.
Since the only prevention is violence. Either your committing the violence directly, or having the government commit the violence for you in the form of a police officer/judicial system. And simply jailing a criminal is a form of violence. Violence is not a binary action (non-violence/violence), it is a description of degrees, In any situation where two or more persons interact there is some degree of violence. One definition (and a good one) of violence is the depriving of someone else through force (or threat of force) the action that they wish to commit. For instance, in marriage, that violence usually takes the form of compromise or verbal arguments/discussions to achieve such compromise...
I personally find the theft of property to be as heinous as murder. I don't care if the theft is a bike, a car, or a package of bubble gum... The perpetrator has relinquished all rights to belong in a civilized society.