The right to life is different than the right to property. It may be a category error to claim that one takes precedence over the other, or to compare them in that way. Some view the right to life, as the right not to be killed, not the right to survival, which has an aspect of personal behavior associated with it.
From a practical point of view, subsidizing those unable or unwilling to survive makes sense. the story of a staving man stealing bread is common.
But shouldn't a market set the minimum amount someone receives for survival ? Whatever the population is willing to give either out of practical or moral duty, and no more.