And Guy Herbert has done well to point out his words.

Taxation was definitely a much smaller part of the picture however.

Many 19th century philanthropists voluntarily took it upon themselves to care for the poor and the sick, frequently doing a better job than the state ever could.

Charity voluntarily given always goes further than taxes forcibly extracted.

There was however much more charity, relatively speaking. And a good deal of mutual aid.

It were truer to say that the development of the welfare state in Britain is a long and complicated story, and that the trouble didn’t really get started till it had recruited and started to serve the interests and aims of the various various professional cadres of social, educational and health policy.

Leftists are very generous with other people’s money.

If you care about the poor, give unto the poor. Don’t force your hands into other people’s wallets, cream off a share for yourself and then call it generosity.

I always find it interesting that those on the statist-left consider themselves morally superior, and yet they are the ones with the incredibly dismal view of humanity. They are the ones that believe that the ends of “social justice” can only be met with recourse to violence.

So what I see are bitter, envious, cynical people who believe violence is the way to get what you want. That doesn’t strike me as morally superior. That strikes me as criminal.

Before the welfare state, Britain had a very sophisticated system for caring for the poor. It was funded entirely by voluntary donations. The poor of Britain had the best access to healthcare and education in the world. Leftists love to trot out figures about how short life expectancy was and how poor literacy was, but of course the 1870′s would look bad compared to the 21st century. Compared to other developed nations of the time, Britain was leagues ahead.

The justification for the welfare state simply does not wash.