Should there be fewer or more restrictions on current welfare benefits?

Secondly, you seem to be either maliciously and/or ignorantly misrepresenting positive vs negative rights due to your personal biases. Your claim that "negative rights protect you from harm, positive rights allow you to harm others" is blatantly biased and untrue. The idea categorizing positive vs negative rights, even according to its original Kantonian analysis, is not of "harm", but of duty. Negative rights don't "protect you from harm", they just grant a "negative" duty upon others (hence the name), whereas positive rights don't "allow you to harm others", they just grant a "positive" duty upon others (again, hence the name). More importantly, you need both for either of them to be worth anything. Having the negative right to something, without also having the positive right to access that thing, means that you don't actually have a right to that thing at all. Having the "right to life" is worthless if you can't actually access the things necessary to live, having the "right to freedom" is worthless if you can be denied access to the things necessary to hold and maintain it, etc. Without a combination of both positive AND negative rights, you end up not genuinely having either. Additionally, I am pretty sure your own god even said "For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, 'You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.'", which is a clear and explicit call for the positive right of welfare for anyone in need. So, ultimately, your insistence on exclusively negative rights was either a simple mistake, or is blatantly against both reason and your own religion.

Lastly, your "definition" of a government is also blatantly biased and untrue, in nearly the exact same fashion as your previous claim. A government is not "an organization with the legal privilege of using force on persons who have not harmed anyone", nor is that even a dictionary definition (if that's what you care about), which is simply: "the governing body of a nation, state, or community". However, I do absolutely agree with your next points:

"it creates a hierarchy, because the government has political power, and the non-government people don't. So if you truly believed in abolishing hierarchies you certainly would not support the expansion of the political elite ruling class of Washington DC for ANY reason"

Correct, I do NOT support the political ruling class of Washington DC, nor do I support the mere structure of our current political system to begin with, largely for this exact reason. As I know I have repeatedly expressed in other discussions of ours, I am fundamentally against the idea of a hierarchical government structure (or any structure, for that matter). Again, I believe the government should BE the public, meaning that I do not believe that a government should consist of two distinct classes, but instead should be comprised of a single democratic class. The only justified government is one in which ALL people share equal decision-making power, with no distinction between "the government" and "the people", hence no hierarchy. It is BECAUSE I am anti-hierarchy that I am against our current political and economic systems.