"I do believe the power of that I understand that some people need help based on their life circumstance."

My response to this would be - Then help those who you choose to help. Who is stopping you? The difference between the principles found within liberty vs. statism, is that one is voluntary, and the other is coercive. One recognizes consent, and the other exists upon force. There is no benevolence nor virtue within force.

How much more can you personally "help" people in need if you were not stolen from in the first place? That is, if you were not extorted via coercive taxation, and then you use a portion of your resources to help those in need which you are speaking of.

"Or is it the general consensus that in a truly free world its your problem and I don't have to help?"

This is a distorted view. The proper view is that gangsters, who call themselves government, are not righteous for stealing from one group in order to give to another. They do not own the resources they are redistributing.

If you were personally in need, would you prefer that people who genuinely have compassion for your need, are the ones who "help?" Or would you prefer that countless thousands of others are plundered and threatened in order to provide what YOU need?

The fundamental issue with redistribution is that those who promote it have some sort of altruistic outlook as it relates to OTHER PEOPLES PROPERTY. Do YOU have a rightful claim to MY resources? Do YOU have a rightful claim to the product of MY labor?

If the answer is no, then what basis would you or anybody else have to claim any legitimacy of how me or my resources are up for grabs without my consent? The answer is that there is no such legitimacy to any such claims.

The best you can do is to be individually compassionate toward others with whatever means you have available, in order to contribute VOLUNTARILY (i.e. without the threat of force or coercion) toward those needs.