False frame. Wealth--meaning a state-granted monopoly to some amount of capital, and a government promise to perform violence on anyone who disregards that monopoly--is a social contract. People are only talking about renegotiating the exact terms of that contract.
It definitely can and should, but it looks very different from the way it looks with a government present to perform violence on violators. And even what counts as a violation is very different with a government than without. That's the point--and if it didn't, there'd be no reason to add in the extra administrative costs of government to get the same results.
And to be clear: government enforcement of property through violence provides plenty of social value, but those reformulated property rights are socially defined and subject to change, and not natural in any sense.
