Hey, I don't mean to condescend or anything, but you might have your notions of libertarian philosophy a little confused. Libertarians do not believe that people should not help or support each other; they simply believe that we should not be forced to do so against our will. Taxing us to redistribute wealth elsewhere is causing us to donate money to other people against our will, and libertarians do not support that.

Personally, I'm not rich. But when I see friends or folk in need who seem deserving, I'm generous. The reason why I'm generous is because I know my money is going to a worthy subject and not someone who is just going to waste it on drugs or other pointless consumables. I'm much less generous (to the point of saying No) when I don't know to whom my money is going or what it will be used for.

I think you might be taking Libertarians as a whole to be cold-hearted bastards, and using that as a basis to argue for state-sponsored existences because you feel that poor people have no way to get money otherwise. I won't argue that there are cold-hearted bastards out there, but in a libertarian society, the poor people need to show that they are worthwhile recipients of charity (e.g. that they will use it to improve their state rather than piss it away) rather than expect a check every week from the all-encompassing government. Is there anything really wrong with that picture?