There is NO moral justification for the welfare state. As for this Kelly fellow being a leading philosopher I do not think so. His teacher was Ayn Rand and he is a perfect example of the student deciding he knows more than the teacher. He doesn't and obviously will never know as much let alone more. His writings will never ever approach Ayn Rand's in popularity.

The key as I see it is the phrase:"The right to be free from the restraints of 'Reality'" This is the 'Liberal' mantra as it melded with the progressive idiocy of Big Government by those self deemed to be in-charge.

The whole of where this small group has taken society into is in fact...non reality. The results of which are disorder and chaos...it has preceded the fall of every civilization since before the flood.

I was stopped dead in my tracks by the title of this post, Dale,
because there are NO moral justifications for the welfare state.
might this be about claimed moral justifications? -- j
.

I have deep reservations about the welfare state but do not (yet) think it should be eliminated completely tho' I have not put the thought into this as have dbh and Kelly. My opposition is from pragmatism rather than first principles.

I have followed the workings of several societies over the years and what I see is not good and getting worse. It starts off by recognizing that some have real bad luck in disability or employment. Then a safety net is put in, that works fairly well - like welfare and tax rates in Singapore and Hong Kong. Then the amounts go up to enable the disadvantaged to live in dignity, then the eligibility criteria are loosened, then more staff are needed. Then there is a big lobby of state workers advocating for their own career interests. Then living on welfare becomes a lifestyle choice, a career. This tradition, culture, is carried over in families like trade skills. Countries that have high welfare attract migrants who intend to live on it, this is good for careers of the staff.
So, the costs escalate for several reasons, all next to impossible to control let alone stop. But, it is worse than that- the money to pay for it goes down. As more choose welfare as a lifestyle, so tax revenue goes down.
Then there are less tangible factors like governments having to raise taxes, or print money.
All in all, an idea that sounds good and is emotionally appealing, especially at election time, leads to an economic and social downward spiral.

Can some frugal level be set, like the size of government, and held to?
Or, once you have a bit, are there are pressures for growth that cannot be resisted at least in democracies?

I happen to be reading that currently. I agree with your review.

We are so far into the welfare state that it is impossible to eliminate it all at once. It must be agreed that action should be taken to erode it over time. The problem lies in the fact that politics shifts left to right and back, so we get one step forward and two backward and vice versa. Freedom is hardly understood by the masses let alone the economics of freedom. Yesterday's debate was the closest we have come to a rational exposition of economics, and still, the amount of information garnered and questions asked were miniscule compared to the vastness of the subject. Dr. Kelly could write a book describing his current book and still not get much effect other than that of the very few who know what he is talking about. And it pales when compared to the giveaway rhetoric of Mrs. Clinton to the uninformed voter. The Gulch can know and appreciate Dr. Kelley, a few others as well, but what about the six or seven billion to whom he might as well have written it in Aramaic?