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.