There is nothing intrinsic to government to keep it from straying from that mission, if it ever had that mission in the first place.
Well, of course not when all you are talking about is 'government' in some mysterious sense. If you are talking about a liberal democracy, then there is something to keep it from straying from that mission: the public. This is part of the necessity of a well-structured, active and participatory liberal democracy. Only in co-existence with that can a functioning welfare state exist. I don't think that a well-structured liberal democracy truly exists in Canada, and following from that I don't think that a functioning welfare state exists. The difference between the government and the market is that in government the public can make loud and clear value statements and can express their moral aspirations actively. The reality is that consensus won't be created, but if those opposing these welfare initiatives cannot gain proper traction then perhaps there is a problem with their position and how their position is expressed.
And if the population cares about the disabled and the poor, then there will be charities whose mission it is to help the poor and disabled in a just and fair way.
Charities, unless they expand to the size of a government, can be neither fair nor just. They can be nice and useful, but they cannot be fair by any definition of the word, as they will not have the ability or the will to create complete coverage for everyone that is born into a geographic area, the only situation in which coverage is fair. Really, lets get some perspective: will welfare subsidize education for all poor students? Will it give income assistance to all single mothers? Will it ensure bare minimums of nutrition and health for all citizens? Of course not, the scale of those are beyond the means of charities.
Welfare is by no means a guarantee in any democracy. No government policy is a guarantee. They are dependent on the desires of the population
Well, that's given, but once they are created by the desires of the population only something as extensive as a government program (that is, applicable and available to all born into a geographic area) can be called just. Charities may also fulfill what people want, but not in a just way.
Wrong - you've got cause and effect backwards. Taxes come before the government programs.
To take it hypothetically, the first people to pay taxes are the ones who consented politically to the government program, and so consented to the resulting taxes. All subsequent generations benefited from that program upon birth and so owe money to continue the program because of that. I would compare it to the duty one owes one's parents in their old age, albeit in a much more distant and abstracted form, one with less or no emotional content.
Does your unwillingness to pay, combined with the fact that you used the bike, mean that you are contemplating theft from the thief?
Now, if that thief owned the bike before you were born and since you were a child it was a necessity that you used the bike, but you were then unwilling to pay for that use since you did not really consent as a child, then I would say that approaches contemplating theft from the thief.
The market can satisfy any need backed by enough money.
So what about needs without any profit incentive, such as care for the disabled? If someone is born disabled without parents who have the means to support them, how does the market then step in and support them? Out of the goodness of its heart?
Everyone on this forum wants it.
I don't want it personally, nor do I need it personally. I want it for those who donâ€™t have the means to log onto this forum and say it theirself.