It's not hypocracy. They know time off is great. They know medical care is great. They know it's great to be housed and fed and not worried about a single paycheck being late ruining your entire life. Their philosophy is not that these things are unnecessary.
Their philosophy is that there are people who deserve these nice things, namely them and people like them, and that other people deserve to suffer. And that every nice thing they get that other people don't, further separates them from the people they don't like.
Some people who believe these things may actually truly believe that the carrot of a better life ahead if you, and the sticks of poverty behind you, might motivate you to innovate or improve yourself in some way. Some of them might believe that the suffering is important, because without it no one would ever do anything.
But I think a lot of them don't even think that. They just like having things other people want.





Public key authentication is more secure than nothing, and is more convenient than shared secrets and symmetric encryption, but bit for bit the secret material necessary for public key cryptographic schemes to be secure is more data than is required for symmetric algorithms.
But more to your point, public key cryptography is basically a usability nightmare. In order to talk to anyone you need to first validate their key using an entirely out of band scheme you already trust, and if you don't do that then all the end to end encryption in the world is theatre.
Of course I'm being hyperbolic, it's the internet, but seriously there a lot of people feeling secure with public key systems that are either totally insecure, or could be insecure and they wouldn't know, or are secure to some random bystander but insecure to people and organizations that are often included in people's threat models.