No.

If you actually care about what someone else thinks, you shouldn't make statements for him or her. For instance, at the very least, you could've instead asked, "Are you proposing that the state should wither away? Do you think the only other way food can be provided is by it trickling down?"

That would've still been a leap to conclusion from what I said, or possibly display a lack of understanding of what I said, but at least it'd be your asking.

I would've asked you to elaborate on what you mean by a state withering away. There's a difference between social safety nets in the context of free choice vs. involuntary constraint. There's a difference between "the state" at present vs. how "the state" can be reformed to justify itself to more humane roles. Finding major faults with [current state systems] is not the same thing as believing [all state systems] must vanish. I would've explained how I'm an advocate of peaceful, open systems wherever the public's trust is at stake. Territorial systems can have net positives in certain domains, such as in violent crime. However, the current system of US criminal law/code is devastatingly unethical. (I find nothing ethical about imprisoning human beings for nonviolent crime, especially when it's a state serving corporate law.) At best, the US system is a stepping stone best understood in historical context, for people of good conscience to step above on a path to something better.

I would've wondered why you're implying that the alternative to food stamps is food "trickling down" [from the rich]. The status quo of US taxation is very akin to "trickle-down" economics. Mass forced funding of a public -> flows into centralized pools governed by small bodies who have the capacity to serve personal, secret, and corporate interests in often closed contracts and closed courts -> devaluing and siphoning value and labor -> distributed fractionally to a public that waits for crumbs to flow back (hopefully) to people in need, pennies to the dollar. It's one of many forms of trickle down economics; it's a form that happens to overlook a great amount violence and corruption of the system by increasingly putting society at the mercy of the system. Nationalists, large corporations, prison systems, and warmongers love it though. The answer to your non-question here is that what I want society to aspire to is ultimately neither approaches -- for both are violent and narrow. We can do better. My aspiration for a freer, more peaceful society is not a switch I can flip on and off. It does, however, start with at least promoting peace and benevolence in culture, for people to begin to aspire to social problems solved by more directly open, fuller democratic (when democratic), voluntary, consensus-based models. Where there are pooled resources, I prefer that they be within a transparency that's more likely to arise when people are able to revoke funding, disassociate, and take part in reformation. The ability to assemble and disassemble is one area where a state can play a greater role in: preventing people from suffering the tyranny of involuntary systems.

My views are not binary. Presume nothing. I ethically value systems that cut out corrupt interests and increase free choice. I like more bottom-up solutions. It requires time. I choose to be a part of increasing the amount of social support on an ethical, voluntary basis by showing people that their actions can have definitive, accountable results and real-world feedback. I strive for a continued cultural shift in how people can empower themselves. Nothing happens overnight. Like I said, I don't want to flip any switches on people most in need.

I want peaceful evolution.

Most of my time is focused tirelessly on a project in this area. I hope to someday help people act upon their better and freer instincts. The least of what I can say from my observations so far is the following. People are far more generous and kinder than most people can imagine. Love and social compulsion is deeply rooted even in this violent species that we are. Action, input, and output are severely dependent on access, information, awareness, and the architectures that form transparency and accountability. True change is best predicated on attitude and culture. Change happens most meaningfully when it's natural: not shaped through dictation. The systems of governance that exist today are neither the end nor the beginning of answering a timeless call to some people who want freer, happier lives for themselves and for the world. The internet is barely scratching the surface of a use for human potential.