I don't see it that way. In the first place, the lifestyle you're describing isn't very fulfilling, so you might naturally want a change anyway; in the second place, I never said I wouldn't want to intervene to try to encourage this hypothetical you to do something more with your life, so I'm not encouraging anything of the sort.
In the third place, if the alternative to "enabling" the feckless lifestyle is to leave the person to starve, then I'd prefer to be an enabler. I don't mean to imply that you'd prefer the opposite, but, then again, I'm not sure what you'd see as the third option. With only a few limited exceptions, people cannot and should not be forced by the State to do anything against their will.