The welfare state was the result of special interests successfully demanding the satisfaction of their parochial ends at the expense of the community. The public at large was never informed about the costs of implementing regulationary and welfare policies. Political parties only make promises at election time. They do not demand the power to impose taxes or to curb liberty. If the promises were made conditional upon the sufferance of the actual costs, it is very unlikely that many regulationary and welfare schemes would ever have received public support. However, once governments are elected, they assume a mandate to impose taxes and to regulate personal lives and the economy in order to deliver on the promises. It took a long time even for economists to realise the full cost of regulation and welfare in economic and social terms. Even after public awareness has emerged on these issues, governments have succeeded in pursuing regulationary policies by deceiving the public regarding their true intentions.
Although the welfare state was not initially the product of the genuine wishes of the people it has now made large numbers of people dependent on it. It has produced a kind of social addiction to welfare. If the size of government is to be scaled down, it is essential to communicate the message that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The nation as a whole pays dearly for this dependence on welfare. The welfare philosophy is to a great extent responsible for the economic decline and social decay of this nation.
The greatest irony about modern democracy is that it is in the name of democracy and consent that vast powers have been accumulated by government and the liberties and real wishes of the people denied.
Modern democracy was the product of the struggle to contain the power of government, then represented by the King. The King was able to govern against the wishes of the people on account of his extensive prerogatives and the vast patronage that he commanded, with which he was able to control even members of Parliament. After a century of struggle, Parliament was able to drastically reduce the King's power and to extend the franchise to the people. The Ministers of State became responsible to Parliament rather than to the King and Parliament itself became representative of the people. A century later, the wheel appears to have turned the full circle. Governments are no longer effectively responsible to Parliament and Parliament has largely ceased to represent the actual wishes of the people. The government is led by the party which has come to power by making extravagant promises to the electorate. Actual government policy is determined by trade-offs between powerful interest groups.
Looking back at the decades of socialisation, social control and steadily expanding government, one finds it difficult to understand how a population mainly committed to conservative values has permitted such a development. The popular belief is that the welfare state and the immense powers needed to administer it were created by the people's democratic choice. In recent years, a wealth of information has emerged from the work of economists and philosophers which effectively disproves this theory. This work, mainly represented by the so called "public choice" theorists, has demonstrated that what have been implemented as "popularly accepted" programmes have more often than not been measures which have actually been directed to serve particular sectional interests. They have shown that the way in which modern democracy operates has been conducive to the prevalence of special interests over the interests of a genuine majority of people. What passes for majority opinion is often a deal struck amongst collusive interest groups and government.
The important reason why the welfare state was not resisted was because the public was neither aware nor informed about the costs entailed in terms of money and personal freedom. At elections, governments merely promise welfare. They do not at the same time demand extra revenue or enlarged powers. If such demands accompanied the promises it is highly unlikely that the people would accept them. Once elected on such a platform, governments assume that they have a mandate to impose taxes and to regulate personal lives and the economy in order to deliver on their promises.
There is more recognition of economic realities as a consequence of the recession and unemployment (yet the words of welfare activists showed that they understand nothing). But it is difficult if not impossible to withdraw benefits which have been conferred in the past. However, there is another explanation of the growth of the welfare state which is rarely considered in the discussion of public policy. That is the extent to which the proponents of socialisation and big government have perfected and applied the art of public deception. The recent and contemporary political history of Australia is replete with evidence of such deception.