Essentially, I’m saying these are emergency situations. 
My house is and I didn’t cause that destruction either.
If the cause of hunger is that your livelihood was taken away from you by causes not reasonably in your control, then we take on that fiscal responsibility.
Of course the government will back up any collection with force! That’s silly. What you said was that I was forcing you to give me money. I’m not doing anything, nor would I be in the scheme I mention.
It seems to me that you are willing to assign fiscal responsibility without a causal agent to arbitrary parties. So am I, except I stress the plural of “arbitrary parties.” 
Then I think you’re reading more into it than is there. My life is not in a state of emergency due to agencies outside of my control. It might not be the best life, but it isn’t so bad that I’m on the verge of bankruptcy (ooh, those naughty tyrranical people, releasing debts like that! ;)), losing my house, being out of a place to live, or out of food to eat. So what claim do I hold over you? The point is that people can fall low enough due to no fault of their own that they cannot even sustain a minimum of healthy existence. They might be willing to work for it, but who would know? No bank account without an address, no work, and so without a work and account, where can they get a residence from? Maybe I tried working but the jobs in the area don’t support single individuals (in especially expensive areas this is actually plausible). Maybe maybe maybe… I don’t know that I can list all the things that can happen in “normal” life to cause “emergency” situations. I think you should reconsider what an emergency is, and what characterizes them.
Which is a great justification for making sure stealing and robbery are illegal. But that’s not a concern here.
You tell me. A storm comes through, knocks a tree down, and damages your roof. Should the roofer do it for free? Why the hell does he have a right to any of your money since he isn’t responsible for the damage? He isn’t causally responsible for the storm! He doesn’t deserve one red cent!
Well, I find a great many decisions in life to have absolutely piss-all to do with morality, to tell you the truth. I don’t think every statement is really a question just because I can say, “…you know?” at the end of every one. (“Two plus two equals four, you know?”) I see a great many things that have to be done in order for humans to survive in whatever form society currently takes. One of these is driving on one side of the road or another in order to minimize accidents. Of course the government can enforce this, they enforce all laws. I don’t see why we must reduce every situation to a moral one. Perhaps that’s another thread.
It only requires that there are events outside of everyone’s control that could reduce them to starvation. Likelihood has nothing to do with it. I still have to get insurance even if I’m a good driver.
Huh? Did we somehow slip into the realm of a blank check where the homeless guy starts buying plasma TVs and the rest of us duped saps can’t lift a finger to stop it?
I’m not reducing life to fiscal expenditures, except in the context of poverty which, of course, has much to do with money. Or a lack thereof.
No credit for building monetary assets? Whoa! I’m asking every single american to make sure people are able to make it on their own in case they fall below the flat level of survival, not to support anyone at all for an unlimited period of time and to any arbitrary level.
In the world I see, I am not a self-made man. I have some intelligence and talent, but it was the society I lived in that enabled me to make my own life with it. I don’t owe anyone anything, it is true: what I’ve worked for is mine. But that can be taken away at any moment by an earthquake or by a downturn in the economy because a few businesses were cooking the books. Where is my self-made wealth then? Didn’t I do everything right? Why can I lose it all if it is mine?
None of it. But it is also true that if it weren’t for the rest of you, I wouldn’t have any of it, either. So what does that tell us about wealth?
Of course. As I admitted earlier, the default person fiscal responsibility will fall on in situations they didn’t cause is the person the tragedy befell.
But just because I am forced by nature to address the fiscal responsibility still doesn’t make it mine. As a rule, I assign fiscal responsibility to causal responsibility when it is there, and to the people most likely to be able to handle it when it isn’t there. There is no blank check. There is no unlimited claim on private property. There is a distribution of fiscal responsibility when the market that usually handles such things inherently cannot do so. Charity works outside of this market, as does redistribution of wealth in such cases. When the market does its job, great! I like it when people make their own way. Unfortunately not everyone can, and for reasons outside themselves. In these cases the economic burden should be placed on those that can handle it rather than those that cannot.