You advocate, in your own words, allowing people to die on the street unless private citizens decide to render assistance. I would far, far rather have state aid than that.

You imply that, left to their own devices, free to serve their own self-interest, private citizens would not decide to help "people dying on the streets."

So in essence you imply that the state must act as a coercive mechanism to override the personal interest of its productive citizens.

From where I stand it appears that you endorse tyranny. Can you explain otherwise?

I deny that a state that taxes its citizens and provides services to all in return is necessarily tyrannical. I also deny that I said what you think I said, because your black and white view of the world appears to preclude shades of gray. If it suits you to use scary words, however, then my answer is yes - it is still preferable to your alternative.