Obviously we don't know exactly how a truly free society would solve many problems such as helping those who need help.  If we truly did feel like we knew all these answers we would be insane because there are a million things to be considered in the many cases of those who need help.  If we did feel like we knew all these answers for all these people we would put on a suit, stand at a podium, and announce that we are running for office to use our superior insights (along with guns) to solve everybodies problems.  And we would find later that the problems really did not get solved because we were a dillusional controlling pinhead in the first place. 

But I think we can use reason to examine these issues and speculate in a logical manner about what could be possible if the initiation of force was taken off the table forever as a viable solution for problems.

The statist paradigm for philanthropy works like this:  The people are bad and will not help others, therefore someone needs to point guns at the people and take their property to provide help for others.  Who is pointing the guns?  The politicians.  Who is selecting these politicians who do this?  The people.

Wait a minute?  If the people do not want to help the needy, wouldn't they vote out all the politicians who take their money to help the needy?  I mean at least 51% or so apparently think that the needy, need some sort of help.  Many others take part in private philanthropy who do not even want the government involved.  The question is whether they would actually write the check themselves instead of actually having the money sneaked out of their paycheck by the government.  There are many endeavors that I believe would quickly wither to nothing if people suddenly had to write a check for them themselves.  Having drug users put in cages, fighting foreign wars, and buying f-16's for dictators are only popular if you can force your neighbor to help you pay for them.  I don't think philanthropy would be one of the things that would wither simply because a large number of people do it on their own despite also having their money taken by the government and given to those in need.

Despite already being forced to give by the government, 65% of American households still give willingly an annual averge of over 2000 dollars a year to charitable causes.

Suffice it to say the marketplace of human needs, includes the need to contribute toward helping those who need help.  There are obviously a large number of people who feel it serves their own lives well to help others. 

So to say that people will not give without force is completely non-sensical.  The only case to be made in the statist paradigm is that the majority of people is using the guns of government to force an uber wealthy minority to give way more than they would have otherwise, the assumption being that in this manner a greater net amount of help is given than if all giving was voluntary. 

This argument has all kinds of problems.  First of all I'm sure a huge amount of giving already comes from the rich.  Once one becomes ultra-wealthy it's probably almost a given that you have a whole staff of people who do nothing but decide how best to give some portion of your money away.  The marketplace desires it.  You could take a reputational hit if you don't and it could jeapardize your business customer base.  Many giants of industry want to walk out at some point and announce the achievements of their philanthropic foundation.  Another problem is that the wealthiest people are usually the most productive.  They are often the drivers of the society and economy, having figured out ingenious ways to give their customers what they need efficently.  In doing this they enevitably enrich others, either by giving them jobs, or by offering them low-cost products that allow them to save money for use on other things (like charity).  Bill Gates has probably ultimately resulted in far more charitable giving through his business activities than through his own dollar amount of giving.  It was not him that was giving it, but others who profited indirectly from what he created.  So even if some billionaire doesn't give a penny himself, by definition he has resulted in plenty of giving.  This is the unseen.  It is not talked about because politicians have nothing to gain by such talk.  They only have things to gain by talking about how government is needed to do everything.

So having established the undeniable fact that there are many people who want to help, and understanding that without government regulatory and tax burdens that cripple economic productivity, everyone would be much more able to give, and furthermore knowing that government giving is non-competitive, and inherently inefficient, I don't think there is any reason to believe that there would be any less help without the use of state violence. 

I think it is also important to consider the psychological and spiritual effects of how we currently live.  In a statist mindset people necessarily live with this belief that most people are inherently bad.  We all think we are good, but we are a little worried about our neighbor.  This widespread belief is necessary to the survival of the state, so it endlessly invents fears to place in the minds of the people.  Fears of terror, fears of invasion, fears of gangs and crime, fears of the hungry and needy starving, fears of billionaire monopolists dominating and enslaving them with a giant empire of industrial greed.  There is a fear behind every new state program.  The more fear, the more power we MUST give the state to protect us from these fears.   Next thing you know we are standing in line at the airport with a strangers hand on our junk. 

Without these fears and this distrust of human goodness, without the fantasy vision of the state as the only viable solution to this conjured state of pervasive evil lurking everywhere, it would become much more painful to live ones life with guns pointed at them, giving up thousands of dollars of property every year, watching the bodies of young men and women coming home in boxes from a foreign war meat grinder.

I am beginning to believe that the distrust of ones neighbor needed by the state to justify it's existence takes a great toll on people's minds and is actually a self-fullfilling prophesy.  I think there is reason to believe the rising tide of freedom would lift everyone's spririt.

There will never be a perfect world or perfect people, but I believe it can be much better than it is and I no longer fear that those in need would go unanswered without violence.  I don't see evidence to suggest that a truly free marketplace of ideas will permit it.

Surely you would not advocate that people be forced to assist you through acts of violence. Libertarian philosophy stands on its ability to provide a consistently applicable ethical foundation.

Libertarianism is half the equation. The other half is market action. And yes, there is a measure of faith involved in getting your needs and wants met without choosing to force others to meet those needs for you.

Governments around the world rely on the ability to spread the notion of scarcity to compel action and obedience, to pit groups of people against one another to the benefit of the political machinery, and those who control the system rely on the support of taxes and fees to spread these messages, to build dependent bureraucracies and corporate structures, and repeat this cycle of manipulation and abuse.

To the contrary, people CAN live in abundance without using force on their neighbors. To suggest otherwise is to deny the economic reality and the advance of technological innovation. To the extent that invention and ingenuity has advanced a quality of life, the government has progressively ratcheted up the rate of taxation to siphon away the benefits of individual progress. This strikes more at the issue you seem to be having in questionng whether a person of limited means or ability would have a place in a "libertarian society".

If the global economy crashes, will apparent violence do any more to solve for the veiled violence of sanctioned plunder? Rationing and price controls destroy the incentive to produce, just as all taxes and impositions deny, obfuscate, and/or re-route market activities which governments tend to deem as 'illegal'.

To believe in libertarianism is not to deny that bad things can happen, but to recognize why they do, and that hurting others to satisfy a personal need is not a net growth of value in an exchange. Your recognition of an ethical framework does not preclude others to immoral ones: Libertarianism cannot therefore be blamed when some other individual chooses to be irresponsible for the consequences of their actions. When many individuals choose irresponsibility, it sets up a fragile house of cards, both in physical AND ethical sustainability.