Charity

The most popular argument for the development of a welfare state is that health care and social security is so important that it cannot be left to individuals for the simple reason that some individuals are unable to take properly care of themselves, and that a society with no welfare state will inevitably foster poverty, hunger and social despair, while a well developed welfare state will eliminate such suffering.

The argument against a welfare state is that it is inefficient, open to abuse, expensive and ultimately not able to provide for those most in need of help, and that charity will in fact serve just as well, if not better to fight poverty and social deprivation.

Charity, although considered a good human quality, is generally viewed upon as something of the past, and associated with Dickensian images of condescendence and deprivation, while the welfare state is considered a modern invention that all developed countries will inevitably embrace, and the conclusion is in most cases drawn even before any serious analysis of the two alternatives have been made.

This is unfortunate, because the welfare state seems to be notoriously prone to produce undesired side effects and never quite able to take care of those most in need. Charity seems to be required in order to take care of the most abject of a state’s citizens, regardless of the size and importance of the welfare state.

There is also a good deal of historical evidence that charity becomes less generous as the welfare state increases in size, which is a very bad sign indeed. The Soviet Union had a huge welfare state, and produced people who were shockingly selfish, while the US has a long tradition of generous charity.

Anyone bothering to take a walk in Oslo will easily find examples of human misery of the most heartbreaking kind, which is proof in itself that a very well developed welfare state does not help the most socially deprived. The misery encountered in Oslo is no less than what you can find in New York, Rio or Singapore.

The welfare state seems to take care of only those who are in a pretty good position to take care of themselves anyway, and this leads to the question of cost. If charity in the United States is able to provide for the abject poor, and family, social networks and voluntary help is sufficient to take care of those with temporary needs, while the larger part of the population takes care of itself by paying for private insurance, what is the added value or cost associated with a well developed welfare state?

What we see in Norway is that 25% of the working population is on welfare at any given time, compared to about 10% in the US and less than 4% in Singapore, so a well developed welfare state clearly comes with a high cost. Not only are many people in Norway not working, a lot of important but low paid maintenance work on Norwegian infrastructure is not being done, because the welfare state guarantees a minimum wage, and the required work becomes too costly for the state.

People can simply not be paid to do nothing and be expected to maintain vital infrastructure at one and the same time, and the result of 40 years of welfare in Norway is now starting to show in the form of Norwegian infrastructure falling apart.

Norway is one of the richest countries in the world, yet it has the worst roads in Europe, its trains are falling apart and derailing, and notoriously unreliable. School buildings are in such a state that they are being closed due to health hazards. The same is true for other public buildings. Having paid people to stay home rather than do small jobs to keep the infrastructure at an acceptable level has made Norway dangerously deprived in the way of infrastructure, with people loosing their lives as a direct consequence of faulty railroads and bad roads.

The cost associated with a large welfare state is enormous, yet the truly abject and socially deprived are no better off than in other countries, and those down on their luck or off sick are at best only marginally better off than people in the US, Brazil or Singapore.

Charity, it seems, has received a lot of undeserved bad press, and the virtues of the welfare state have been greatly exaggerated.