I understand where you’re coming from. It is certainly possible to have a runaway “Nanny State”, which can have its own negative consequences. I don’t disagree with you on that point.
However, I think you’re disregarding two important points:
- There are many examples in the world that aren’t a “slippery slope” — like Australia, which I mentioned earlier. These are countries that find a balance (however imperfect) between a fundamentally capitalist economy and a social safety net.
- Don’t make the mistake of thinking that only “liberals” support social safety nets. Most people who are politically in the centre in western democracy would tend to agree that some sort of safety net is required — the question usually comes down to where we draw up those lines.
For example, here in Australia, there are always ongoing discussions about the kinds of welfware programs we offer, and what we fund around healthcare, and so on. There’s no debate that we need to have these systems — the debate is always around how they are implemented and how their effectiveness is being measured.
In other words, it’s a far, far more nuanced discussion. The original article we are commenting on accurately reflects that nuance, I think; it’s not proposing some kind of extreme communist or socialist approach.
