How can the state not? Well, the Nanny State has only been there for about 60 years, so in fact quite easily!

So, the crux of your argument is "loads of others are doing it, so why not?"

I would argue that instead of giving more away, it would be better if the other abuses that you mentioned are dealt with.

Private charities are often safer than givernment aid. E.G. Oxfam spends c. 2% on beurocracy. Most people that work for them are doing it from ideals, and not to make a living, an index linked pension and ultimately a peerage out of it, as is the case with the Civil Service.

Small charities also can meet the local need that is seen, not have massive "fact finding missions" to see what the problem is.

And what about groups banding together and helping others when times are hard as in Friendly Societies? They still exist at the moment.