I agree with the intention, but in practice it's not so easy :) If someone is hungry and govt wants to feed them, then govt needs to forcibly take food/money f

I agree with the intention, but in practice it's not so easy :) If someone is hungry and govt wants to feed them, then govt needs to forcibly take food/money from someone else and give it to that person. That transfer of resources takes govt money and people to execute it. So in addition to an amount $A being transferred from person P1 to person P2, an amount $B must be expended. With a bureaucratic govt, that amount $B is non trivial relative to $A. We can imagine a system where $B is reduced, or even taken to zero. The idea is that if left to private markets, this sort of transfer happens anyway, but is (1) more efficient, and (2) more ethical because it does not rely on the use of force. It might happen due to family giving money, charity, etc. In a less extreme form, a negative income tax (still administered by govt) might replace welfare, or minimum income might replace minimum wage; both are more efficient.