Perhaps I do misunderstand him. I took his "massive difference" comparison to mean that he doesn't believe charity is sufficient, and he would prefer welfare to be considered a right.

In the long term, the government is just a conduit - it matches and enforces transfers, it doesn't generate anything itself. The case of states that can sell resources is perhaps an exception for some time periods, but doesn't generalize in the way most people think of rights independent of local or temporal situations.

In any case, a right to support directly requires SOMEONE to provide that support, doesn't it? If everyone is allowed to choose not to provide that support, the suffering must be accepted.