Please don't use this kind of argument to turn HN into reddit.
I'm also fairly certain this has nothing to do with the concept of justice.
Most of the world has signed conventions that makes basic livelihood a right -- and puts it on the state to ensure this.
Perhaps you don't agree with these laws and conventions. But please consider that the very concept of "ownership" and "property" is also something that is only upheld by laws.
Also on a pragmatic level, why should those without property acknowledge and support a state which doesn't look out for their basic livelihood? A state that does not at least try to make sure everyone has a livelihood is a sure path to social unrest / revolutions that causes problems for rich people as well.
You should turn around and ask: Why should people support the notion of property?
Property is part of the social contract in much the same way that human rights (everyone having a livelihood) is part of the social contract.
Some problems for sure, but it's probably manageable. Poverty is not and should never be an excuse for crime. Rich people can build as many prisons as necessary.
They do, because the laws are bought by the rich.
Most people disagree with that and seem to think it’s possible to have angels from heaven running the government machine. The thing is that even if you manage that, it’s bound to go wrong at some future election.
