It's easier to take up a moral position about this kind of thing. "Human rights," like the human right to a home, or healthcare, or education, are just empty promises from the state. The simple fact is that these things need to be provided by other people. If the state promises you a right to a home, then it then has to violate somebody else's property rights by coercing them into building/funding that home. Human rights are a contradiction. Natural rights are your only rights. Marxism has poisoned the ideological well, in a way. There's this prevailing idea that we somehow live in post-scarcity world, and that we can employ force to shift resources around and end social ills. That isn't the case. Not only does it fail spectacularly, but it's immoral in the first place. Everything in this world must be worked for. That is a fundamental truth. You don't necessarily have to work to get it (charity can morally exist, and it isn't worked for), but resources come from somewhere. If a man is starving, we can very well employ force to secure some bread from someone else. However, let's remove everybody else from society. Nobody else is around to produce bread. We can no longer use force to secure an outcome. In order to survive, that man would have to work. The sooner we realize that it's immoral to initiate force against other people and their property, the sooner we can start alleviating these social ills legitimately.