Simple way to run a country

1. Hospitals have duty to provide service for free to those who cant afford it.

2. Private schools have duty to provide education for free to those who cant afford it.

3. Landlords have duty to provide housing for free to those who cant afford it.

4. Stores have duty to provide food for free to those who cant afford it.

5. Water and basic clothes are free for those who cant afford them.

6. Military production is privately owned, and companies compete to sell military products to the state.

7. People have obligation to work if able.

8. Government's policy is service for service. Government doesnt provide services to those who refuse to provide services to the government.

9. Bigger companies are expected to pay more in taxes and more in free services.

10. Government will support struggling buisnesses.

11. When government needs some job to be completed, it will direct that job to private companies.

Government will offer reward, and the company that completes the job gets the reward.

12. Government will cut out undesirable production

13. State will own a part of the market, and act as buyer and seller.

14. Local companies act as local governments who put state's law in effect.

15. Government will print certain amount of money to increase money supply.

16. Private companies regulate free services, but answer to government.

17. The basis of economy is competition and citizen report.

18. The laws are based on survival of the state and government.

Isn't this how Sweden operates?

I just figured that 

If state collects taxes from private companies to pay for private company's services to poor people...

A more simple way is to simply force private companies to give services for free to poor people.

It skips the whole need for taxes.

There is no simple way to run a country. Simple slogans are good for getting elected but not for governing.

Here's how it actually works: lawmakers spend months, sometimes years, and countless man hours, crafting bills which will make a few surgical changes to some obscure, complicated working of the government. The end result, if implemented well, is that the government does a marginally better at helping society than it did before. Through a very large number of successful changes, you start to see a noticeable improvement in the way things are.

Generalities like "hospitals have duty to provide service for free to those who cant afford it" can't be left as generalities. In practice, this means either some greatly expanded Medicaid-for-all scheme or nationalizing hospitals so that they're public employees.

If the former, you add to the Federal budget, which is already running a deficit. If the latter, then hospitals aren't fee collection points for services rendered; the USFG must get better at more generally collecting taxes from elsewhere (hint: it's not very good at this). Additionally the USFG must either bump the pay of doctors to compensate them for the significantly greater amount of work they'll be doing, or it can hire more doctors to cover said workload (there's already a growing personnel shortage in the industry so this isn't a viable option). Either way, more will have to be spent on healthcare than at present. A third option, of course, is to ration the availability of healthcare to everyone else so that the existing pool of doctors and nurses can spend more time on the poor.

As the old saying goes, "There's no such thing as a free lunch."

In my view, liberals actually would have a lot to contribute to this country if their passion and zeal for improving society was guided in the right direction.

The right direction is campaigning and struggling to change the behavior of ordinary individuals in some positive direction: eating right, staying in shape, giving more to charity, not turning a blind eye to the plight of your neighbor, support groups for people with mental health challenges, lowering your carbon and environmental footprint, etc. Things that make a real difference without violating boundaries of consent. If they encouraged people to do better without forcing or effectively forcing them to, then I wouldn't complain. In fact, I might even join them in making a better world.

The problem here is that the bulk of your list involves the government forcing people to behave X or Y way, or robbing them of money that belongs to them through undue taxation (for example, that which exceeds a flat tax rate). This violates human rights, such as property rights, and human freedom.

Wrong.

It just means that private hospitals by law must provide services to those who cant afford it, for free.

Really? Taxation is theft? I mean, okay.