As much as I understand your fear of a government impinging on one's rights to be "kind"
I'm not advocating the banning of charity or "kindness" as you've so charmingly twisted it. Charity is simply the voluntary donation of funds to causes you feel need it more than you. If a government is willing to admit it has moral responsibilities towards its citizens in some areas, say the current flavour of free healthcare and education to a certain level, then surely adding other elements of medical research, support for orphans, and victims of abuse are worthy forwards steps rather than the idea you're suggesting.
( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 22:41, archived)

The government has no moral responsibilities that are not also individual responsibilities.
All moral responsibility the government has has been delegated to it by individuals because some causes are served better by collectives than by individuals working alone. Donating money to charities also serves that end. The government essentially is a charity, but with the practical difference that you can't choose not to donate to it whether you agree with it or not. And what's left over is the purest form of democracy there is.

A government has to admit that it has moral responsibilities, because it is nothing else. What it does not have is the moral right to rule. It rules, properly, by public grace alone.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 22:46, archived)

and yet we have government agencies to approve charities
thereby transferring at least some of the responsibility of those entities to a central government. Increasing taxes to support that idea to the next step is hardly a social abhorrence, unless you want a completely private market to begin with, including private health and education.
( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 22:58, archived)

Governments supporting charities is a daft idea,
either you create a government department to do something or you let the people fund it themselves. This mixing up of the two ideas makes very little sense.

Completely eliminating all public participation in the public good is an abhorrence. Completely eliminating centralised efforts would be, too. There's a balance in the middle, somewhere.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 23:05, archived)

which is why I said from the start I dont like charities. I'd prefer a proper public agency.
But don't use the word "public good." The public good comes from paying taxes and not cheating the system. By making the welfare of the needy a national agency you're not removing all aspects of kindness, not at all.
( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 23:08, archived)

The public good comes from good things being done.
The state does not, and cannot, have a monopoly on goodness.
You'd be removing a significant proportion of kindness if you banned charities and charitable giving, you'd be removing it completely if you banned all charitable actions as well. The ideal is not "all government" or "all charity", but co-existence. There has to be enough government strength to prevent the strong individuals dominating the weak, but not so much that people are reduced to naught in excess of blind subservience to the law.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 14 Jan 2010, 23:21, archived)