How To Respond To The Liberal Argument Of The Nanny State

In a word choice.

Liberals/socialists love to say if the state was not there to provide healthcare & pensions, people in need would be dying and living in poverty.

Liberals/socialists say if the government was not there to help people, people would be worse off. Liberals/socialist say people are better off with government assistance than without it.

Okay, lets assume that what they say is correct.

Lets assume that people are better off paying their taxes and getting assistance from the government.

If that is the case then why do the people who the welfare state/nanny state are there to protect not given the choice to opt out?

For example. Why is someone, (who the government is supposed to be a benefit) not given the choice to opt out of being protected by employments laws, nationalised healthcare, state pensions etc and in return they get to keep the taxes that they pay towards to the government system.

In short, why is the individual whose is supposed to be benefiting from the welfare/nanny state not given the choice to completely opt out of any government assistance in return for not having to pay any taxes to the state?

And not just the individual given the opportunity to opt.

But if they decline to receive any assistance from the government in return for not having to pay any tax, then their employer is also relieved of any regulatory and tax burden when they employ a person that has chosen to opt out.

If the welfare state, the nanny state, social security, whatever you want to call it, is such a good thing for the people it is supposed to be helping then why are these people not given the choice to opt out?

I mean, if it is such a good deal then nobody will opt out, and if they do decide to opt out and decide that it was a mistake, give them the choice to get back on board.

I see absolutely no logical reason why the people the nanny state/welfare state/social security claim to be helping are not given the choice to not receive government help in return for not paying any taxes.

If it is such a good deal, then the government has nothing to fear. (The government would fear people opting out?)

If it is such a good deal then why has the government made it compulsory for those with the greatest needs to contribute to the system?

I put it to the liberal/socialist, that if it really were a good deal, then it would not need to be compulsory.

What are your thoughts?

Get the latest updates in your inbox