There's nothing in the pure argument for private property which contradicts a moral obligation to support the downtrodden. The purists would only insist that the support be offered voluntarily. I'm somewhat disappointed to see the assumption to the contrary repeatedly made on this site.

Advocacy for private property doesn't start from a motive of greed. Rather, proponents regard it as the best way to responsibly manage scarce resources and create abundance. After all, there is no charity without abundance.

Private property and open markets create the incentives for value creation and increased productivity. While central planning may be able to achieve these ends theoretically, in practice we find that the incentives of the bureaucrats and insiders often limit productive opportunities. The "Economic Calculation Problem" is another huge barrier for successful state management.

So while the sales pitch for socialized management of resources often involves "equality of outcome", it often results in the lowering of productivity generally. Worse yet, centralized bureaucratic control of scarce resources incentivizes favors to large industrial concerns, politically connected classes and elites.

Obviously there will be those who disagree with this analysis. I only object to the misstating of intent.

Right, of course. But there's a difference in moral code on: who is the rightful owner of the surplus generated, and how should it be redistributed.

a) private ownership, even charity is directly immoral (Ayn Rand)

b) private ownership, no state redistribution but charity is morally compelled (religious conservatism)

c) private ownership, reluctantly accept state redistribution to prevent social- or system tragedy. (US republicans and democratic establishment)

Note that all of the above are what I'd call property rights fundamentalists. Then you have:

d) mixed ownership: surplus morally belongs both to you, and the system that allowed you to do business in the first place (US progressive liberals + most of the world's centrists)

Here's where the rest of the world generally reside. There's endless diversity and constant debate about the how, the who and the how much.

The problem with the US "left" is that it's split: the liberal progressives are in (d) but the establishment remain in (c): they're subconsciously conceding to property rights fundamentalism while advocating for redistribution, which puts them in a constant uphill battle to "immorally" extract value from the rightful deserving class of billionaires and business owners. That's also why democrats are considered right-wing by policy compared to the majority of the Western world.

Personally, I think this is why Bernie, Mamdani, AOC etc gets subject to such disproportionate attacks. Fiscal policy-wise they're pretty meh (just go back a few decades in the US and you'll find the same), plus their real-politik influence is also pretty mid. BUT, the real issue is they're shifting the moral baseline from (c) to (d), which is an extremely dangerous perspective shift for established interests. Rhetoric like "pay your fair share" is unacceptable to the hegemony.