I would say also the "everyone's special" culture, which goes into the whole self-esteem racket, goes beyond the welfare state.  It is lower standards to make them feel good about themselves, because of the belief that esteem was a magic bullet.  I would also argue an ethics system based on "rights" as opposed to based on something else, combined with self-esteem, is a formula for must dysfunction.  The rights frameworks gives animals "rights", because you have no other basis for framing that cruelty to animals is wrong.  This framework of rights, which is the basis of modern secular western ethics systems we have today, end up having its limits and causes much contention we have today. 

When one argues that the poor has rights, and thus they MUST get helped, the end result is a compulsive tax system, and government intervention, that takes from one group and gives to another and never works as well as something voluntary.  If you were to have an ethics system where it is something like people who have more have a duty to help those who are less fortunate, then the system ends up voluntary and works better.  But keep arguing rights, and inanimate objects are said to have rights also, and stuff like not poluting (producting negative externalities) is not addressed unless someone champions the Earth and says it has rights.

We've just seen looting and rioting on a massive scale in Britain, a society which certainly does not lack for a social safety net. The problem really is a break down of society, of morals, of personal responsibility, and of any sort of culture of internal and external shame. Life was a lot harder decades and centuries ago, and people didn't riot because of it, but a bunch of spoiled kids armed with smartphones and brand new clothes will damned sure riot if society constantly tells them that they've somehow been cheated out of having even more stuff that they haven't earned. Especially if they don't have to worry about being shot either by the police or by an armed and empowered citizenry. It's rather darkly amusing how many governments promise they can take care of you from the cradle to the grave but are unwilling or unable (same difference, really) to carry out even the most basic functions of a government, like, oh, preventing roving packs of brats from burning down whatever they please.

As for the old "legalize drugs but tax the shit out of them and make it a great hassle with lots and lots and lots of regulation!" canard, sounds great in theory but if you tax it too much or make it too great a hassle, you'll probably do nothing to seriously harm the black market while still having the negative effect of removing much of the social stigma against using drugs. Sure, lots of people use illegal drugs anyway, but many more abuse legal prescription drugs and that, in part, is because it's not seen as something "dirty" like smoking crack.

Positive rights are eventually ruinous, while negative rights are not.

An alternative viewpoint.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/08/11/hussain_britain

Some excerpts

When considering the actual premise of "national security," one would have to look at a country which has descended into widespread internal chaos as being "insecure." For all the money spent on aggressive wars against ill-defined enemies in obscure parts of the world, the most dangerous threat to the actual physical safety of individuals within a country remains from their fellow citizens given a breakdown of social cohesion.

It is a sign of dangerously confused priorities that defense spending is considered to be a budgetary holy grail which must be left untouched when discussing cuts to overall spending; but deep cuts to social services which directly affect the lives of millions of Americans are considered fair game. Nothing is more of a threat to the safety of Americans than a social system which will produce a generation of angry, disaffected young people and give rise to the types of scenes Britons are witnessing today.

While the rioters have come from backgrounds which cut across lines of race and social status, in the broadest sense what most of them have in common is that they are young men from economically deprived parts of the country.

In general it is because of the widening gap between haves and have nots and the cutting of programs that supposed to help the have nots become haves.

Well it is true to some degree. A lot of welfare bums just sit around and use their welfare cheques for beer/liquor instead of looking for jobs.

Welfare is definitely a huge contributing factor to national debt as well.

I don't know why people are so avid about keeping welfare around. It causes debt, laziness, and provides people with no incentive to go find a job.

Norway - $2.23 Trillion Debt

Denmark - $560 Billion Debt

Netherlands - $518 Billion Debt

Finland - $371 Billion Debt

Very high standard of living, but at a cost. And the US has huge debt thanks to social spending, as well as reckless military spending.

Good post, finally someone who sees welfare how it is. Its great in theory but so many people abuse it and countries are going broke because of all this stupid spending on social programs. 

Welfare, in itself, is not a bad thing. Welfare is supposed to help honest, hardworking people at difficult points in their lives - for example, just after they have lost their job. No society can function with the level of arrogance and entitlement of benefit cheats in the UK. They have multiple children and ignore them, using the money to buy alcohol. They go down to the job centre once in six months so that they don't lose their benefits and turn down every job offered to them. The amount we spend on welfare is ludicrous.

But that's not even the worst part. It's easy enough to cut spending. But when you've had thirteen years of Labour screaming at these people that benefits are their god-given right, and that spending cuts are the root of all evil, and that there is a vast conspiracy of the wealthy and the Conservative Party to keep them down, that's when problems start.

To blame the Conservatives for this is extremely naive. To blame welfare itself is ludicrous. The fault here lies with Labour and Labour alone.

Up to a point.  However, consider you start saying the Earth has rights, and you begin to restrict people access to doing certain things they would normally.  While what you said is true, up to a point, you start infringing upon freedoms people normally have, that could be ruinous.

On the first point, I would say the breakdown of morals leads to the later problems, and if you lose that, you lose society.  If you also foster a culture where everyone is led to believe they are supposed to get the best of the best, all you have to do is just "try hard enough" and if you are "good enough" you are guaranteed, or that such is a right, then you will have problems.

On the second point, the issue isn't to make it a great hassle, but to recognize that individuals using drugs can royally mess up their lives, and just like you would have with the ability to drive a car, if you want to do drugs, you need to agree you fully are aware of the consequences, and how you can get addicted and ruin your life, and you assume full responsibility for doing such.  Idea is to take just enough funds to make sure the negative externalities are covered for and people are responsible if they are going to do it.  I would also look to extend the license to the use of alcohol also.  Funds from taxes of it would also cover paying for needed law enforcement anfd so on.   What is happening is people verify they know the risks involved and you still end up making sure the funds covered make up for idiots who happened to get themselves addicted, so they can get off it.  Want to have the free market manage this, so that it is run more effectively?  Fine, but you make sure it is covered by society, and people fully understand what they are getting into before engaging in it.