If the people cannot afford healthcare, shelter, and other basic needs is it fair to assume that they are not medical professionals, builders, or (e.g.) farmers

If the people cannot afford healthcare, shelter, and other basic needs is it fair to assume that they are not medical professionals, builders, or (e.g.) farmers? If not for compensation how do you propose they obtain healthcare, shelter, or other needs without good will? After all, taxes ultimately don't guarantee fundamental needs are met; production does. As an alternative to good will, you seem to be suggesting that the powerful members of the state force others to help, either directly (particularly in a healthcare setting) or through forceful confiscation and redistribution. While that may solve the problem of poverty (the efficacy of various redistribution schemes is not what I'm particularly interested in here) the idea that it's somehow indicative of a more enlightened society seems backwards. A society that freely and voluntarily gives seems more civil to me. Further, your last sentence doesn't lend much support. While unfortunate circumstances may create a culture of pity, forced redistribution may create a culture of malice and hostility. It may (and, from what I have seen, does) relax any conscientious call to action with the simple excuse, "eh, the government takes care of that."