Most of the western countries were not welfare states in the 19th century, but they evolved into welfare states unanimously in the last 100 years. Can someone explain this phenomenon? Rivalries of libertarianism use this to argue that a state without welfare is not sustainable. So any ideas?
i agree that people need welfare at times… and without some type of welfare, society isn’t sustainable… but welfare does not have to be public… welfare companies can be private… in fact, welfare companies have to be private if you want an efficient and productive company…
democracy does create a welfare state over time because democracy is based on ‘‘majority rules’’… which is why most, if not all, Austrians are against democracy… Aristotle has a great book on the disadvantages of democracy, “Politics”… Walter block does a good job at explaining the disadvantages of democracy as well, just search him up on YouTube…
I wouldn’t use the word “unanimous.”
As for an explanation, I think it has a lot to do with the increasing affluence of most Western societies, not necessarily the type of government. People generally have a good deal of money and a good standard of living, so it’s much easier for the government to skim away part of it to fund programs like welfare when it doesn’t really pinch most people’s wallets. In earlier times, when individuals had much less wealth of their own, let alone anything to give, taking anything away from them to fund something like welfare would have caused an uproar (especially considering the number of people who would be eligible under such circumstances). As times change, as the welfare programs become more bloated, and as the economy continues to struggle, I think people are realizing the obligations that the current system is putting on them and are starting to protest as a result.
My second theory is that many people are more akin to sheep than lions. They might say in principle that what’s their private property is theirs, but when the government comes to take what is theirs, they ultimately acquiesce instead of fighting back (either through elections or out-right revolution).
Democracy naturally evolves into a plutocracy.
I’d say that the advent of welfare states was an effort to co-opt the various socialist and communist movements. Furthermore, people who are unemployed (i.e. not getting any income) are more likely to foment uprisings against “the system”.
Keep in mind that modern-day democracy itself was an effort to co-opt the various popular movements for checking the power of the absolute monarchs.
I’d say that the advent of welfare states was an effort to co-opt the various socialist and communist movements. Furthermore, people who are unemployed (i.e. not getting any income) are more likely to foment uprisings against “the system”.
That’s an interesting point. I can see the rational behind something like Social Security in the U.S., as well as for many European countries that had and still have a reasonably strong socialist constituency / sympathy. How would the same logic be applied for programs like Medicaid and Medicare, which were created during the height of the Cold War and not too long after a time when even being accused of being a Communist could lead to your ruin?
Very simple. Most people think Communism is about not having Democracy. Oh, and also men in uniform marching in high boots.
Central planning, private property rights, freedom, etc… - people just have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s Democracy vs. everything else. That’s about it.
Old people and poor people often have more time on their hands with which they can get involved in politics and vote more.
The Ancien Régime French Kingdom used to pay enormous rents to the nobility. How was that not a welfare state?
I personally agree with De Jasay that ‘the state’ - any state - has a tendency to expand, because the demand for goods provided by government can always happen below the marginal cost for the people demanding it. So there is a constant demand for more goods provided by government. It obviously depends on certain historical circumstances how big this demand is, how much the state can withstand it and so forth. But the pressure is there and is there to stay.
I also agree with Hoppe and Kuehnet-Leddihn (probably wrote it wrong) that democracy is worse in that regard that a monarchy, i.e. a democracy has a harder time withstanding the pressure for more goods provided by government than a (real) monarchy.
That is exactly what Bismarck had intentioned for Germany in the late 19th century. Socialism was on the rise, and he recognized that a welfare state would take the wind out of their sails while making the German people more dependent upon the state. The same theory might be applied to the U.S. during the 30s. How many times have you heard that the New Deal programs “saved” American capitalism from communism?
Like a barbed edge that only moves in one direction…
Can you provide a source for where Bismark said such a thing? I would very much like to read it.
Exactly. 
I’d also like to note that it isn’t democracy per se that leads to a welfare state – it’s legal positivism that does.
@ Solid_Choke:
I can’t find an exact quote by Bismarck, though you can read a little about it here and here. Also, check out Mises’ Omnipotent Government, pages 165-166.
Most welfare states have also been products of a post-wartime period, and otherwise include many wartime legislation that were made permanent.
It’s futile to use one sweeping word like “welfare state”, but take, for example, government involvement in higher education - government loans for that purpose started coming out when former soldiers returned to finish their education across the West, and then it became permanent. Before such legislation, most people were not and didn’t need to be college educated, but as the West made it fashionable, college education was to be a fundamental right guaranteed by taxpayers.
The first reason for that phenomenon, I reckon, is that modern democracies practice a ‘one man, one vote’ system, regardless of the amount of money each voter “puts in”, so there is no correlation between the ability of an individual to influence the distribution of the government’s budget and the actual amount of money an individual has contributed to it. Organised groups of people who systematically contribute less to the public coffers but are numerous, population-wise, distort the flow of money towards their own purposes (in the case of welfare the group is usually the poor and the purpose is usually governmental operation of services they cannot purchase themselves).
The second reason is that affluent people (who contribute beyond their relative share of the population in taxes) can afford almost every social service that the government provides, yes