And just out of curiosity, how far exactly do you think property rights should go? Is your right to own something more important than another persons right to life? Property rights are a social construct granted to you by society at large, they don't have to be and are not absolute.

You wouldn't need to abolish property rights. Another way to look at it is that you'd essentially transfer the cost of social programs to people through insurance instead of through taxation.

Additionally you'd create a pressure in society to increase wealth equality / charity and opportunities for the needy / poor, since nobody likes to be stolen from all the time.

Right now the poor are an abstract problem for many, especially the rich, if you ran the risk of being stolen from directly maybe you'd have a stake in increasing wealth equality. Or maybe you'd just hire private security.

It might actually be a better system, or it might not, who knows?

No jurisdiction on earth enforce property rights as absolute and inviolable. There are tons of exceptions everywhere, because every society on earth recognizes that there are situations where the needs of individuals or society as a whole are more important than individual property rights. This is just one more exception.

Further, it is an exception based on a principle that has historical roots that pre-dates every modern legal system. It is totally unsurprising that some of them have codified principles that can be used in this manner. Especially given that e.g. the principle of necessity in many jurisdictions can be used to justify far worse abrogations of property right than petty theft.