1) : distribution of resources to live by state and 2) : maximization of direct indivudual decision of use of the resources can coexist and we should seek combination of both. It is only the way to respond to valid criticisms to welfare states.
If we think life is right and therefore support of life is duty, only 1) is should be adopted. Because only state can force the nation to carry out their duty by law. Limitations of state bring about when rate of distribution is diffent among states and at the same time transfer of people and goods is free cross the border. So the direction which we should adopt in collection and provision of social resources is correction of diaparities among states, by no means shift from state to “community”.
On the other hand, 2) urges us to rethink all social policy and social expenditure. That is, we can suspect that all uses of budget which have specific purposes (eg. buisiness stimulation) are unjust intervention to one's life. Some people often say that in social services user's direct choice is difficult. This argument is in part true, but we can reexamnine how many such cases exist and increase user's direct choices. And even when social supports to user's decision is needed, we can develop methods of decreasing unnecessay intervention.