Choices have consequences.
If you stick your hand in a fire, you get burned. If you lick a poisonous toad once maybe it was an accident-- you thought it was the delicious leopardfruit. If you like the toad again, maybe it occurs to someone that you have piss poor eyesight, and we give you a pair of glasses. Now... if you lick the toad a third time, then clearly you must have a death wish, and maybe the most compassionate thing is to simply allow you the freedom to have your way.
I'm all about freedom, and I agree that society has gotten out of balance. We seem obsessed with protecting people from the consequences of their choices... as a result of which, no wisdom is gained. But whereas I am for "freedom," I am NOT for radical self-reliance without compassion. Maybe that makes me "part hairy liberal," but I don't believe we need to give up a core human essence of compassion and caring.
Radical self-reliance without compassion isn't stable either -- the bonds between society members aren't strong enough without charity. A society without the safety valve of charity is prone to long running cycles of inequality and revolution.
The question is, does the faux charity of social safety nets end up in the same place as real charity? I would argue that it does not.