In response to this: "where does it say that this government must also supply health care and education and other social functions that you endorse?"

I think it is easy for us to forget where or why certain ideas come from, and how it was that modern society came to be. There is always some catalyst for change, and more often than not the motivating factor is some catastrophic social change that threatens all of society.

A good example is the French Revolution. James Mill, a famous Scottish philosopher of the early 19th century, noted that Europe needed the French Revolution, not because the revolution was good, but because people should realize that there should never be another one.

The French Revolution was a catalyst for change because it made the aristrocracy realize what would happen if the working class continued to be held without political power. The aristocracy was forced to give up some power and allow the merchant class (the early capitalists) to gain political power. It also allowed the birth of what would later become our modern representative democracies.

Then in 1917 the Russian Revolution occurred, and the capitalists who had monopolised a lot of the wealth and power of the world realized that capitalism had many serious problems. The Great Depression catalized the belief among the working classes that capitalism was failing to improve the lives of many working class people. Communism was becoming the ideology of choice among the working classes and the unions that represented their interests. In 1945 Stalin's Red Army occupied half of Europe and in 1949 China had its revolution. By then half of the world's land area and half of its people were under Communist rule.

Western economists looked at the problem and realized that high unemployment, runaway inflation and lack of services for the working class were fuelling Communist ideology and plunging capitalism into one economic crisis after the other. It was John Maynard Keynes, the great capitalist economist, who proposed "interventionist" policies in which the state would diminish the effects of bad economic cycles by controlling interest rates, the money supply and investment in public works.

Other economists, alarmed by the effects of poverty and the radicalization of the working class, championed "welfare capitalism" as a way to improve people's lives without destroying economic growth or plunging into revolution. Just as with the French Revolution, the Russian and Chinese Revolutions served as catalysts for change that led to better health care, education, social services, etc.

The question is, having seen the changes in world politics in the 20th century, can modern society exists without some form of "welfare state" that ensures that all citizens get the necessary health, education and social services? Is there still a risk that if those services are removed radical politics (like Communism and Anarchism) could regain impetus among the working classes?

Having grown up and lived in a country with virtually no "welfare state" I can say that it is impossible for any modern government to function effectively without some form of welfare system. Having lived in Canada, and having visited Europe many times I can say that the welfare state does lead to very high standards of living. Paying high taxes might be the drawback, but the quality of life seems to justify the taxation problem.