Socialist State vs Welfare State
There is a vast difference between a social state and a welfare state.
In a social state everything goes to the better welfare of all. This means that everyone who can work, does work. The resultant resources of that work goes to a central repository and then is distributed equally. Note: This is an idealist situation that has been tried and has only succeeded on a very small scale and short term, such as a town or low population county. All it takes is someone getting into power that puts their own welfare above the welfare of others and this system falls apart.
A welfare state has people who expect to be supported, regardless of their ability to support themselves. The problem with this setup is that when the people who work hard to support themselves realize that people who do not work are taken care of without all the stress and hard work, they lose the required incentive to continue working. When the number of people who are working, falls below the number of people who are not working, this system falls apart and everyone starves.
Neither of these systems works. These systems are naive and short-sighted. If working harder nets people less than or no more than what they receive if they work poorly or not at all, what is the incentive to work or achieve? These systems lead to scientific, medical, technological, and social stagnation.
Discussion ¬