Talk about what's "natural" for societies can easily fall prey to the Naturalistic Fallacy: arguing that something is superior because it is "natural". But nature doesn't interact simplistically with human beings. Being aware of what they are, and of nature, humanity is able to make decisions that other animals cannot. As a result, you cannot assume "the natural way" is better, or the unnatural way either. It has to be taken on a case by case basis.

When it comes to "cutting off those who don't deserve our help" it's tempt and gratifying to the ego of the person who sees themselves as having power, to subscribe to a "natural" philosophy of survival of the fittest. But even that cliche is commonly abused and misinterpreted. Survival of the fittest does not mean "the strongest, most powerful, most dominant" - it means the most adapted to survive. A seemingly weak creature that an subsist in a lean ecosystem will outlive a seemingly more aggressive creature that requires an unsustainable food supply.

Those who have nurtured their own selfishness and sense of superiority, and have become proud predatory consumers and capitalists at the complete expense of being citizens, do not understand (or want to understand) that a society is only as strong as its weakest member, in the long run. Here's something that's also "natural" - every society which has hoarded wealth and resources into an increasing power elite has inevitably suffered the natural reaction to this: rebellion and the castles of the elite being burned an gutted by everyone who they've directly, or indirectly, stepped on the backs of.

Right now, American greed and self-obsessed egoism is being manipulated by those with power, aided by the serfs who see themselves as the eager students of this philosophy and destined to enter the ruling elite one day themselves. (Another delusion historically encouraged by those with power. Get the serfs to fight among themselves and stratify. Give some favorite a few jars of honey and say "be good and some day all this can be yours too. You shall be rewarded for betraying your fellows.")

The war against the poor is ongoing and a part of this.

I'm not sure anyone is claiming that the "natural" order of things is superior, just that rapidly re-organizing society based on unproven principles without allowing any discussion and with no provisions for determining if things have gone wrong or correcting missteps is certainly going to end with a much worse society. For nearly a century this approach has been repeatedly tried to great praise from the academics that were proposing these changes be made domestically, and as these systems eventually devolved into a totalitarian state which kills its own citizens there is never an acknowledgement of how poor this approach was.

In the societies that have seen success in changing the natural order of things the approach has been much more reserved, that make incremental (often compromised) changes, where these changes are often reversed.

There is a progress fallacy also, which believes whatever is new is always better.

I do not think homeless people should sleep in public, however then there should be more funding for shelters.

Highways:

You argue "toll-road" galore as if it would be a bad thing, I am of the opinion that paying for the roads as you use them is a good thing. Densley populated areas suffer because of this "free road" system - putting a price on things puts a limit on demand, which can be used to control congestion.

I don't know exactly how highways are funded in the US, so I'll just go on the basis of how it works in the UK. In the UK, each year, you pay a road tax, this tax varies depending on the car you drive (age, carbon output, etc, etc). Once you have paid your road tax, you have unlimited use of the roads. I'll now borrow an example form one of my favourite books (The Undercover Economist):

A student bar at the University hosts an event each week, students can either choose to buy a ticket for £2, which entitles them to unlimited soft drinks, or a ticket for £10, which entitles them to unlimited alcohol. What the University finds, however, is that the vast majority of students buy the £10 tickets, and drink an amount that is a) unhealthy, and b) detrimental to their studies. The university tries to curb the drinking, so they decide to double the price of the alcohol tickets, to £20. The result of this is that while a few people do switch down to the non-alcoholic tickets, most carry on with the £20 tickets, and continue drinking the same amount, if not more.

When applied to roads, the Government is the University, the alcoholic drinks are the miles driven, the expensive ticket represents the road tax, and the cheap ticket represents the shitty alternatives (public transport). Much of the UK, particularly South East England suffers from severe congestion. I live in a village, and yet for 2 or 3 hours of the day, the roads can come to a complete standstill. In the towns nearby, you can end up spending a very long time in traffic. One of the ways that the Government has tried tackling this, is by increasing road tax. As you can see from the example, it helps a little bit, but not enough.

The problem with the one-off pay system is that the amount you pay per-mile reduces with each additional mile you drive. In essense, you have every incentive to drive more, as each time you drive, you get better value for money (on road tax, fuel duty is another matter).

So, no, I don't see road tolls being a problem, particularly in the modern era, when the entire system can be automated, with no stopping at booths. The companies also have an incentive to keep the traffic flowing as freely as possible - which means things like road maintenance will be better, along with break down assistance, crime prevention, etc. The road companies will want as many cars driving down the road as possible, each additional driver is more money in the bank. You argue that some roads will hold a monopoly position, and, yes, but that will be the exception, and not the rule. For most journeys, there are multiple routes that the driver can take, or they can get a plane, or a train, or not travel at all - each one of those options is something that the road owner would have every incentive to compete with. If there really is a situation where one company holds the rights to the only route which has really high demand, and they exploit that position... well, then I'm gonna make a jump, here, and say that land is cheap and underdeveloped (else there would be more routes), and the high profits from that company would easily attract a new investor to build an alternate road.

Healthcare:

Yes, the US healthcare system is up the crapper. But it's the furthest thing from a free-market system. The Government mandated tax incentives for health insurance essentially makes it favourable for people to buy the worst kind of model, couple that with all sorts of laws preventing cross-state competition, a broken legal system, and Government intervention removing the bottom of the prices (when the Government provides for the poorest, the market no longer needs to cater for that income bracket, they can charge pretty much what they want), factor in Obama's reforms that will make costs increase even more in the long-run, and take the industry further away from a free market.

By far the best solution to healthcare in the world is the system that Singapore uses, Medical Savings Accounts. Read up on them, if you want (basically, Singapore manages to achieve one of the best healthcare systems in the world, with the lowest infant mortality, and highest life expectance in the world, while only costing 3% of GDP (1% public spending, 2% private). Now, I don't agree with how Singapore enforces the system - as it's essentially forced - but you can buy these accounts in the USA. The problem is, so few do, thanks to all of the Government pandering towards the insurance companies. Again, this is not the kind of Government that I advocate.

Education:

Education is difficult one, for me. As children need an education, but obviously, they are reliant on the parents to provide it. However, I do feel that education should be handled at the lowest level possible (at the very least, removing federal control, and having it handled by the states... if not pushing lower). I would also recommend that these states/districts/cities/whatever implement a voucher system. This would allow for competition, and for private companies to get involved, while also assuring that the children from the poorest families receive a high quality education.

Again, for me, education is hard because those who benefit from it, aren't the ones who pay for it. But that doesn't mean the federal government should get control of it. 

Like I said in the other thread....

the problem with the homeless numbers and shelters isn't funding, it's utilization because 80% of homeless people are homeless for less then 3 weeks. 10% of homeless people are homeless for less then 2 months... a lot of these people are just people who lost their current place and have to wait a week or two for their new place to be "prepared" and they sleep in their cars.

The rest are largely just people who are mentally ill in some way, usually do to trauma.

The laws against sleeping in public were created specifically to coerce these mentally ill people to stay at shelters and halfway houses since they have a dislike for authority and tend to not want to stay there and we have no ability to forcibly admit people to homeless shelters or mental hospitals.

Homeless utilization rates are far from 100%.

In truth, there are tools in this country that shouldn't keep almost anyone without any huge problem from finding a place within 3 weeks, and even those with problems who have a problem or two but otherwise are workable from finding homes within 2 weeks.

Baring living somewhere that doesn't even make sense to have year round homeless shelters because there may be a dozen or so homeless people scattered over the course of a year... and even then i'd expect local churches and the like to pick up the slack.

Chronic unsheltered homelessness is primarily a negative effect of us beleiving a patent should always have a right to refuse medical treatment so long as they aren't a clear and present danger to society.  Well that and a lack of a family dynamic in the inflicted person's life. 

How it works in the USA is two fold.  The Federal government puts a tax on every gallon of gas that is distributed to the local ares and states on a "need" basis, so long as the states comply to a number of the federal governments demands.  (Proper driving age, mandotory insurance laws).

The rest needed for maintence is made up by local taxes on agreed opon rates, and sometimes on levys for important deals needed to be done.

Slowly it's been creeping to the gas tax being a larger and larger share, espiecally as local area's are deciding to actually gravelize some roads they don't get much use out of rather then pay expensive matinence fees.  Which generally is the above problem...

not just are people who live in high trafic areas getting screwed, but so are people who get roads through pork barrel "get my state/area" money politics.

Sure the construction companies and public workers get some extra pay... but maitence is left to the city, often for expensive new roads they hardly ever actually use!