If being poor is justification for using violence against someone to take their stuff, then there shouldn’t be any police officers in these poor black communities that incur so many violent robberies.
There are very few things that legitimate, just governments have the authority to do (whether they give themselves the authority to do such or not), and none of these things can violate rights, or else they are unjust.
Property rights are also a human right. This one is more difficult to explain: free speech is protected as soon as one is able to begin speaking after they’ve learned to speak. But when does one first obtain property? This is a difficult question. There are some historical conflicts between what happened when Europeans came to America. Although it is accepted that many Europeans threatened Native Americans’ lives unless they surrendered their property, there is also evidence that Europeans and Native Americans lived in harmony at least in some communities. Regardless, this simple question arises with regards to property: when we think about humanity’s first existence (when we first came upon the Earth), how did we define property rights? That’s not an easy question for me to answer. After Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden, how did we determine whose property was whose? This, of course, does not explain why property is a human right, but I’ll attempt to explain the logistics of it before I explain why it is a human right, and what it means that it is a human right. Let’s say that as Adam and Eve had children, and their children had children, that there was a conflict over a piece of land. Let’s say that two brothers each wanted a piece of land. If the land was previously unowned (in this case, since the number of humans was so small, only a claim for a particular piece of land meant that whomever claimed the land owned the land, with the obvious problem with this being if two people claimed the same land at the same time, which I’m discussing right now) then how would the two brothers whom each claimed that they owned the land settle their dispute? They could either try to kill one another, with the one remaining alive obtaining the land, although this is undesirable for obvious reasons. They could come to some sort of agreement between themselves that does not require the use of a third party, or they could agree to bring in a third party to settle their dispute. In either way, some sort of agreement must be reached non-violently, either among themselves or while bringing in a third party to settle the dispute.
So let’s say that this property dispute was settled, and let’s say that each of these two people decided to get half. What would happen if a third party came up and tried to make claim on the land? Here, the logic would remain the same:
Either the third party could attempt to peacefully negotiate with the now owners of the land, or he could unjustly violently attack said individual for his land.
In the first case, the land was previously unclaimed, so because of the small number of people involved, if someone made a claim on the land, they could have it and if multiple people wanted the land, they could figure out a way among themselves how to settle their dispute because no one actually owned it at that point in time.
But after a piece of land is owned, the owner does not need to negotiate in order to keep his land when someone else makes a claim on it. This is a violation of his natural right to own his property (which I’ve defined how someone gets their property), and I’ll discuss why people have property rights in another piece more fully.
But an obvious extension of this is that if people make deals to exchange things and someone ends up with more land than someone else through this peaceful process, then it is unjust to use violence to break this apart.
Peace is always the ultimate goal unless it is not, in which case we all suffer in the end.
Typically, we don’t like to suffer, and peace is the best way to maintain the lack of suffering (peace in itself is also a value as well).