And there's the problem:"
"In addition to these primary political rights, I believe the State has an obligation to provide every citizen with certain secondary benefits if possible. Among these are education to the limit of his ability to absorb it, medical care, employment, a dignified retirement, and assistance in the event of economic distress. It goes without saying that practical considerations of finance will limit these benefits, it is obvious that we can’t all have everything for nothing, and there are practical limits to such aid as the State can provide. But that obligation nonetheless exists, and it must be met as much as it practicably can and the financial resources of the state allow. The amount and limitations of this aid, and the taxation necessary to provide it, will be determined legislatively and democratically."
Can't you see the fundamental flaw in this concept? The "State" can provide nothing. It can only redistribute private wealth, and when this redistribution is decided "democratically," what is the inevitable result?
A positive feedback loop, and we're in the middle of it.
I'm afraid "practical considerations" left the building a long time ago.