Life should be fair because the net total wealth of fair societies is quite a lot higher, because more people are stakeholders with a genuine chance for some form of success.
People who can't own property have very little reason to work. People are not all that dumb; if the "chance" to own property isn't real, they aren't gonna be fooled. But if you run a fair system, where people have real rights and a certain amount of basic cooperation is enforced, you suddenly have a lot more people working harder -- and not just working harder, but
thinking harder. And that's where you get innovation, which is where the vast majority of the wealth comes from.
So in short, since I want to be wealthy, the best strategy for me to pursue is a strategy which maximizes the number of reasonably wealthy people.
Note that I can do all of this without any appeal to morality or ethics. I can also do it purely by appeals to those, but since people disagree about moral and ethical rules, I prefer to use the purely pragmatic argument.
(Thus my essay on
how to become richer than you've ever been.)
EDIT: And yes, I find it hilarious that someone lazy and incompetent is promoting lolbertarianism. A person who's got nothing to contribute probably shouldn't be advocating a system under which his best chance of survival would be someone stronger deciding that he's got a pretty mouth.