Goodin manages to pack quite a few fallacies into one thesis. Private-sector assistance, of course, does not. There is a big moral difference, then, between relying on government and relying on voluntary forms of help. That difference has far-reaching implications. The welfare-state beneficiary who believes he has a right to other people's money is likely to be more virulently dependent than someone who accepts voluntary help rendered in a spirit of good will.
Private charity is more likely to be based on firm principle or religious conviction.
That charities years ago distinguished between the deserving and undeserving poor was not a matter of arbitrariness but rather of deeply held belief. Why an atomistic individualist would laud the marketplace has never been explained. We can achieve far higher living standards and far more satisfying lives by availing ourselves of the variety of associations possible in a free society. That's a dependency no libertarian ever objected to. What advocates of the freedom philosophy object to is the reliance on physical force, either directly or indirectly through the welfare state, to achieve one's ends.