Whether charity is demeaning to the recipient or not is not an argument against charity. Nor is it in favour of social welfare either. Being a welfare recipient may also be demeaning to some. It's really a subjective thing.

I don't think we can totally do without some sort of welfare system. A purely charity model would probably be deficient, not because "man is basically selfish!", or any arguments of impractability, but rather because capitalism is not a perfect system as it tends to benefit the cunning and the lucky, and the "have's" are often the ones that are least likely to be charitable, while the "have some's", who may be more likely to give to charity, don't have enough to give.
Our existing capitalist economical system is not entirely compatible with the egalitarian ideal therefore it needs some social welfare to offset it, if that is an ideal we want still want to attain that is.
However social welfare can become too much of a burden and therefore more detrimental to a society than beneficial. So it comes down to a balancing act between the two i think.

At the risk of idealising the poor, I must say that I have rarely met one I didn't like. I think that poverty is an occupational hazard if you want to be a nice person. Our current economic system encourages characteristics such as ruthlessness and nastiness. People who are too kind to others will end up poor, wether they are clever or not.

The one thing that bothers me though is the continuing automatic assumption that we need the welfare state.

Sure, it would take a great deal of political courage to unwind it, but I am convinced that it has outlived its usefulness.

The poor and needy still exist- somewhat surprisingly, given the billions of dollars that are spent on them each year. Government departments associated with welfare have become vast employment machines, which instead of adding value to the economy simply divide the fruits of others' labour between itself and its "customers".

If we think simplistically for a moment, and add back into the productive part of the economy (real businesses that produce and sell products and services) the amount that is wasted on these middle-man drones, we would have a more productive country, better able to compete in the world economy.

The school I went to in the UK was founded in 1532 by two brothers. The scholarship that enabled me to attend that school was from a charitable foundation established in the nineteenth century by a local businessman, keen to give children from less well-off families an opportunity for a better education. The hospital my sister was born in was founded by a Victorian philanthropist. There are many, many similar examples.

There is no fundamental reason why we can't transfer the responsibility back to the private sector, only a lack of will and a crippling taxation system. I am sure that given the opportunity, those better-off in business would see fit to take over the finances of their local school or hospital, and make a damn sight better fist of running them into the bargain.

At the macro level, our society is substantially better able to do this than any previous generation. The key is to make a virtue out of "using" wealth in this manner, rather than simply "having" wealth.

After all, there are only so many yachts/Lamborghinis/villas that you can enjoy in one lifetime - and previous generations realized this.

Good post Pericles.

"The key is to make a virtue out of "using" wealth in this manner, rather than simply "having" wealth."

I also think that would be a key additional element required if we were to pull the rug out on welfare, it would require some sort of shift in the existing capitalist construct.

The welfare state in the UK was dismantled and watered down in the Thatcher years. It started to be watered down in Australia in the Keating years, but more so in the Howard years.

Most of the unwinding of the welfare state has already been done.

The problem is, fiscal monetry theory didn't work for the poor. The working poor are miserbable, their families are breaking up, and people are wondering why.

Fiscal monetry policy is an outdated failure as our standards of a functioning society crumble. Oh yeah, some have choices. Shop all woolworths and rip off the farmers. That is just great.

How much more do you want to cut back? So you want to trust the wealthy businesses with doing the right thing by cutting taxes. They will look after the poor from the goodness of their heart?

Give me a break! They don't in the third world, and they wont as we become third world: without social security and civil infrastructure. They didn't get rich by being angels.

You expect the poor to have a leap of faith in the church, or a leap of faith in the wealthy. Their situation in the firstplace is an outcome of a dysfunction.

The only way to remedy this is Government, that is we have Government in the first place. This keeps a security in society to stop them from revolting if too many get too poor. That is why they call it social security.

The truth is the less advantaged pay welfare to the economy. People are selling their families to their employers. Sounds funny but the family is becoming dysfunctional because parents have no time for their kids (I include teenagers here) and time spent as a family unit.

The trouble is this society only judges everything on short term economy and runs on blind faith of the work ethic and has no concept of externalities and social health.

How much carbon savings can we achieve by dumping the 24 hour economy and running a four day week? Including television telecasting time?

How much can we save on crime and youth road toll by giving children and parents a decent amount of time to spend with each other?

How better would regional economy be stimulated if spouses were able to have the same time off for holidays and perhaps more holidays.

We are stuck in a 19th century greed pit and we complain about the few cents welfare costs each of us when we subsidise the very companies that over charge us.