Why does Democracy defend the property rights of the rich?

The Socialist is not helping others when they use force and violence to make third parties 'help' the poor. There is no virtue in coercing others to do as you wish even if it appears to be benign. Forcing someone else to be charitable is not charitable. If we threatened our neighbour with violence unless they give to charity, have we been virtuous? Might the beneficiary of the charity prefer that violence is not used, for they do not use it themselves...

The only acceptable use of violence in this scenario, when we have a (problematic) discrepancy in wealth which we want to remedy, is to point the gun at the Capitalist and instruct them to divest of their assets; to give (the bulk of) their assets away, or to sell them cheaply. We can force people to sell their belongings if their ownership is preventing the legitimate use, by others.

The difference is between forcing someone to give away their assets (to pay for, to spend the money on charity) and forcing them to actually do the charity. It is more acceptable to force people with assets to spend them on charity, than to force them to actually do the charity themselves.

If people have spent enough of their money on charity and do not claim too much property, they can have done no more than that for others. It is no sin to not have actually done charity yourself, spending is equivalent, if money is still in use and valuable and can (still) provide security.

If someone is not preventing others from accessing their land, or space, or other property, then they have done no crime. Property is defined by action. If ownership of space is mapped out at a central authority, it can be for the central authority to decide what to defend for people; there can be no argument from the person who wants to be protected if others do not (want to) provide that service. It was the Government's fault for defending too much land on their behalf!

We can inform a rich person that their second and third homes are no longer being protected by the State and the police and that they are now exposed to poachers and squatters.

What we choose to (help others) defend must be contingent on our opinion of where the merits and virtue lies. We can say that we have changed our mind about what is owned by whom, and who would be the aggressor in a border (boundary) dispute.

Is it better (in the first place) that the (arbitrary) lines are drawn on a map, in abstract? It would certainly seem to be pragmatic.

It is the responsibility of the ones who are responsible for determining the boundaries to make sure that there is not too much poverty, by preventing people from taking so much land that they have not left enough to others, for the commons. The State must refuse to defend the rich to such an extent as they do now, and inform them of this fact, of course.