How should the relation between citizens and the welfare state be described? The various answers offered to this question lie, in general, between two polar extremes. The one extreme regards the universal welfare state as a political system which has succeeded, by means of ever more refined public programs, in meeting the greater number of citizens' needs for economic security and social care. By representative and parliamentary means, a kind of service democracy has been created, in which citizens collectively organize the benefits and services they – or the majority of them, at least – desire. The system is solidaristic and just, moreover, for it ensures equal treatment according to centrally standardized norms.

The opposite ideological extreme portrays the advanced welfare state as a new Leviathan, a despotic master which orders citizens about at will, and which severely limits the prospects for individual freedom and self-determination. Welfare provisions cultivate, moreover, a sort of learned helplessness in the citizenry. Furthermore, the welfare state deprives citizens of much of their economic autonomy – through the heavy taxes it levies. “The welfare state thus deprives the needy of the ability and authority to decide their own affairs, and hands over decisions that should express the individual's autonomy to paternalistic officials,” writes Avishai Margalit. The bureaucracy in charge of this monstrosity, finally, lives a life of its own, and the possibility of directing its operations by means of parliamentary decision is, in actuality, extremely limited.