I believe providing for citizens basic human needs should take precedence over individual property rights. I'm thinking this question is really loaded, especially against socialism or any kind of socialist act that the government may pass. My main issue with this is the fact that is all about money and property. There are people in this world who would rather spend $50,000 on a brand new car over making sure Jane Doe down the street gets the heart surgery she needs. I don't understand that philosophy because if the person was dying in front of you or maybe at your door step, you'd probably feel differently about it.
Assuming that basic needs means things like clothes, food and shelter, I would say that these simple expectations for life would far exceed the needs of a property owner. After all, no one in the US really owns their property. They only own the rights to operate that property as they deem fit. The property really belongs to the government. If the government deems that some property would be better used caring for some other peoples basic shelter needs, then they are justified in re-appropriating it.
No, I do not think that providing for citizens' basic human needs should take precedence over individual property rights, because I think that a person needs to work hard in order to provide for their needs, or depend on the charity of others. We don't have the right to take something that someone else has.
I do not think that providing for citizens basic human needs should take precedence over individual property rights. I think that they can co-exist and don't have to be butted up against one another in yet another false dichotomy. In my opinion, property rights are a basic human need too.