[Radar]

No. Via the NAP, I reject government solutions because they are funded by force, fraud, and theft and because they don't help those in need as much as private charities. I wouldn't have a RESPONSIBILITY to help those in need, but I would have a desire to help them. And because my money wasn't being stolen by government, I'd be able to afford to give more help those in need through private charity than I do now.

It's not charity unless it's voluntary.

The fact is many people don't give to charity because they mistakenly believe that these failed government programs must be helping someone and even if they did want to give, they've had so much money stolen from them by government, they can't afford to give as much as they'd like. Even if 1/3 of the money collected by government for social programs like welfare, medicare, public education, social security, etc. were donated privately, the benefits to those in need would double.

If government suddenly ended each and every one of those programs, private donations would skyrocket to help those in need because people who normally don't donate would not longer assume it was being handled by government, and they'd dig deep. Americans are among the most generous people on earth when people are in need. This would be especially true for our own people.

So do people have a responsibility to help those in need? No. But most people have a desire to help those in need and would do so if given the opportunity to choose what to do with their own money rather than having it stolen from them. Responsibility means obligation. It denotes a lack of choice in the matter. We have a choice. Some people will choose to be greedy bastards, and some will choose to be generous to a fault. The point is the choice is ours, not "society's".