引言：一直都在思考为什么社会上很多人争着去考公务员，或进入某个国企即所谓的“体制内”工作，他们在追求什么呢？财务自由还是福利自由？可看看他们的生活状态，怎么看都不像啊？直到今天在X上看到Elon Musk转发的一张图片，仔细看了一下，随又做了和国内情况的对比，慢慢就理解了其中的原因，那就是公民福利不等于人生自由，下面就写出来供各位朋友参考。

    “它不是一个无休止地扩大的权利清单--受教育的“权利”保健的“权利”、食物和住房的“权利”。那不是自由，那是依赖。那些不是权利，那是奴隶制的配给-----干草和人类牲畜的谷仓。” P.J. 奥罗克

第一部分：P·J·奥罗克关于福利和自由的观点

    这张图片展示了美国政治评论家 P. J. O'Rourke（P·J·奥罗克）的一段名言。他在这段话中批评了一种关于“权利”的扩展理解，尤其是关于政府提供福利的观念。他的核心观点是：

1. 质疑“无限扩张的权利”

    奥罗克指出，现代社会中一些人认为“权利”应该不断扩展，比如：受教育的权利、医疗保障的权利、食物和住房的权利。

    但他认为，这些并不是传统意义上的自由（freedom），而是一种对政府的依赖（dependency）。他认为，如果政府提供一切人们所需的基本服务，人们就会变得对国家过度依赖，而不是靠自己奋斗获得这些资源。

2. 依赖政府不是自由，而是一种控制

    奥罗克的核心论点是：当政府提供人们生存所需的一切时，它实际上掌握了对公民的控制权。这种“依赖”并不是自由，而是一种变相的“奴役”——公民必须顺从政府，换取它提供的福利。

    他用“human cattle”（人类的牲畜）来形容这种状态，暗示这种依赖让人们像家畜一样被喂养，但同时也失去了独立性和自由意志。这种观点可以追溯到自由意志主义（libertarianism）的一种立场，即：真正的自由不在于政府提供一切，而在于个人能够自主创造自己的生活。如果政府掌控了你的食物、住房和医疗，它就能掌控你的行动、思想和选择。

3. 对比“自由”与“奴役”

    奥罗克在这里做了一个隐喻：他认为真正的权利应该是人们拥有自由去追求这些事物，而不是政府直接提供它们。当政府提供过多福利，社会就像变成了一座大农场，而公民则成了由政府饲养和管理的牲畜，失去了真正的独立性。

    这种观点与一些自由主义经济学家的立场相似，例如米尔顿·弗里德曼（Milton Friedman）和弗雷德里克·哈耶克（Friedrich Hayek），他们认为：过度的政府干预和福利国家政策会削弱个人的自立能力，让人们更加依赖国家，从而影响市场经济的正常运作。当政府提供越多，控制权就越大，个人自由就会相应减少。

    当然，这种观点也有其争议性：

• 社会民主主义者和福利国家支持者认为，基本生活保障是人的基本权利，而不是“奴役”。比如，欧洲许多国家提供全民医疗、免费教育和社会保障，但仍然是自由民主国家。
• 政策现实主义者认为，适度的福利政策可以减少社会不平等，提高整体生产力，而不是让人变成“牲畜”。
• 保守主义者和自由意志主义者则会认同奥罗克的看法，认为政府不应过度干预个人生活，而应鼓励市场和个人奋斗。

    总之，奥罗克的观点反映了美国自由意志主义的主张，即：真正的自由是个人能够自主谋生，而不是依赖政府的恩惠。如果政府掌控了基本生活资源，它实际上也掌控了公民的自由。过度依赖国家福利，会让社会变得像养殖场，而不是自由竞争的市场。

    无论是否认同，这段话确实引发了一个重要的讨论：权利的界限在哪里？政府的责任应该有多大？一个社会的自由与福利应该如何平衡？

第二部分：P. J. O’Rourke 的观点与中国政府模式的对比

    P. J. O'Rourke 在这段话中批评了一种无限扩展“权利”的观念，认为当政府承担起提供教育、医疗、住房、食品等所有基本需求时，公民会变得对国家高度依赖，从而失去真正的自由。这种观念在西方世界，尤其是自由主义思想盛行的国家（如美国），是对大政府和福利国家模式的批判。然而，如果把这一观点放到中国政府的治理模式下来看，就会发现一个非常有趣的对比。

1. 中国政府的“强国家模式”：控制与福利的混合

    与西方福利国家不同，中国政府并未建立类似北欧或西欧的高福利社会，但却通过其他方式确保民众的依赖性，使国家掌控社会的方方面面。

• 国家提供一定的基本保障：中国并不是完全的福利国家，但它提供了最低水平的社会保障体系，如医保、养老金、廉租房等。然而，这些保障往往是部分性的，仅限于特定人群（如城镇户口居民、国企职工），且覆盖率有限，农民工和私营经济从业者往往无法享受同等的福利。
• 国家主导一切：由于中国政府在经济、金融、信息、教育、住房等多个领域具有强干预性，公民的日常生活很大程度上依赖于政府的政策安排，而非市场的自由选择。例如：个人的住房问题受限于政府的土地政策和房地产调控；医疗资源主要集中在公立医院，私立医疗体系受限；教育体系是国家统一管理的，课程内容必须符合官方意识形态；工作机会在许多行业仍然高度依赖国有企业和政府支持的机构。

    从表面上看，这似乎并未形成“高福利社会”，但它仍然制造了一种对国家的依赖，公民很难完全摆脱国家的影响和控制。这种模式既不像欧美福利国家那样提供全面的社会福利，也不像美国那样让市场自由竞争，而是建立了一种“有限福利+强控制”的模式。

2. 中国式“权利”与政府的控制

    奥罗克认为，政府无限提供“权利”会让公民变得像“人类牲畜”，依赖政府的供给，失去独立性。但中国政府采取的方式不是过度提供福利，而是严格控制权利的定义，确保公民的行为符合国家利益。

    中国公民的“权利”是有限且附加条件的：言论自由：受到严格限制，批评政府可能会带来严重后果；财产权利：土地归国家所有，个人仅拥有“使用权”；迁徙自由：户籍制度仍然影响着个人的社会地位和福利获取；选举权：公民不能自由选举国家领导人，只有形式上的基层选举。

    这些权利的存在，使得中国政府可以在不提供“欧美式福利”的情况下，仍然让公民保持对国家的高度依赖。这与奥罗克批评的“福利国家导致依赖性”并不完全相同，而是通过“有限供给+权力控制”塑造了一种更隐蔽的依赖模式。

3. 与美国福利国家的对比

    奥罗克的批评主要针对西方左派政府的福利政策，例如：在欧美一些国家，政府提供免费教育、免费医疗、基本生活保障，使公民不必担心生存问题。但自由派批评者认为，这会导致公民失去独立性，变得懒惰、依赖政府。在这种模式下，政府通过财政补贴让社会稳定，代价是高税收和对个人经济自由的限制。

    中国的模式却完全不同：政府并不直接提供高福利，但通过经济调控、行政命令和社会管控确保社会的依赖性。公民并未被“福利”养懒，但却因为政府掌控资源（如房地产、医疗、教育、金融）而无法真正脱离体制独立生活。在欧美，政府对个人的控制主要是通过高税收和福利系统，而在中国，政府的控制更多体现在信息审查、户籍制度、政策干预等方面。

4. 极权 vs. 高福利：两种不同的“依赖”

    奥罗克的核心论点是：政府提供太多福利，公民就会依赖，最终变成“人类牲畜”。在欧美，这种依赖体现在：福利领取者依靠政府救济，不再努力工作；全民医保让人们不愿意为医疗储蓄，而是依赖政府；过度依赖政府的教育体系，使个人丧失独立思考能力。

    而在中国，依赖体制的方式不同：不是依赖“福利”，而是依赖体制资源。例如，房价高企让人们无法脱离政府调控的房地产市场，医疗和教育资源被政府掌控，社会流动性受到体制性阻碍。不是政府养活你，而是政府限制你的独立性。你仍然需要工作养家，但所有经济机会、职业晋升、社会资源都受到体制影响。

    换句话说，欧美的“依赖”是经济上的，而中国的“依赖”是政治上的。

5. 对体制内基督徒的影响

    对于体制内的基督徒来说，这种模式带来的挑战更加复杂：

1. 信仰受到限制在体制内，公开信仰基督教可能带来职业风险，比如升迁受阻、政治审查，甚至社交压力。
2. 依赖 vs. 自由：在体制内，你的福利、住房、医疗、养老金等都依赖政府，脱离体制意味着失去稳定性。但基督教的核心教义强调属灵的自由、对神的依赖而非政府，这与体制思维是对立的。
3. 如何持守信仰？体制内基督徒需要更智慧地在现实与信仰之间找到平衡，不盲目迎合体制，但也不轻易挑战高压环境。他们需要建立稳固的家庭和教会支持体系，在有限的空间中实践信仰。

    总之，奥罗克的观点提醒人们，不要因为政府提供福利就放弃个人自由。但在中国，公民的依赖并不是因为政府“给得太多”，而是因为政府“控制太多”。在欧美，人们可能因福利而依赖政府；而在中国，人们因政策控制而不得不依赖政府。

    对于基督徒来说，这意味着在追求信仰自由的同时，也要警惕任何形式的体制依赖，无论是经济上的，还是政治上的。最终的自由不来自政府，而是来自对上帝的信靠和对真理的坚持。

第三部分：政治起到了人民赖以生存福利的“同等”作用

    从人民的依赖性来看，中国的政治体系在某种程度上起到了类似“福利”的作用，虽然它并不像西方福利国家那样提供全面的社会保障，而是通过政策、行政控制和经济干预，让人民的生存与国家的稳定捆绑在一起。这种模式使得公民的生活不仅依赖经济资源，还依赖于体制本身，形成了一种与西方不同的“国家依赖”模式。

1. 体制福利 vs. 经济福利

    在西方福利国家，如北欧、法国或德国，政府提供：

• 全民医疗：公民可以免费或低价享受医疗服务；
• 社会保险：失业、低收入人群可获得补贴；
• 教育保障：大学甚至是免费的（如德国、瑞典等）；
• 住房补贴：贫困家庭可以申请政府支持的住房。

    在这些国家，公民依赖政府的福利体系来维持生活，但这种依赖是经济性的，并不直接影响个人的政治自由。相比之下，中国政府并不提供如此完善的福利体系，但人民依然对国家产生了类似的依赖。这种依赖主要体现在：

• 经济发展带来的社会稳定：许多人认为“国家发展带来了就业和财富”，因此依赖国家政策带来的经济红利，而不是依赖市场自身调节。
• 体制内的工作安全：公务员、国企员工等依赖政府提供的工作岗位、住房福利、医疗保障，私营企业员工则依赖政府政策来决定行业发展。
• 社会控制下的安全感：政府通过严密的社会管控（如治安监控、言论审查等），让许多普通人觉得“稳定大于自由”，认为政府的管理能保障生活秩序。

    这种模式并不是直接发钱、发福利，而是通过国家对资源的掌控，让人民不得不依赖体制，从而形成一种政治性福利。

2. 政治福利：依赖体制的隐性机制

    在中国，许多人即便没有直接从政府手中领取补贴，仍然形成了一种对国家的“隐形依赖”，因为体制的运作方式让个人难以独立运作。这种依赖体现在多个层面：

（1）就业依赖：体制的庇护 vs. 市场的竞争

• 在体制内（如公务员、国企、事业单位）的人，通常享有比市场经济更稳定的待遇，养老金、住房福利、医疗保障较好，因此形成了对政府工作的高度依赖。
• 在体制外（如民营企业、个体户）的人，也受到政府经济政策的强烈影响，比如房地产政策、税收政策、金融监管等。如果国家经济政策发生变化，许多行业（如教培、互联网）可能瞬间崩塌，导致大量失业。这种情况导致民众对国家政策的依赖远远大于对市场的依赖。

（2）住房依赖：政府控制房价，人民无处逃脱

• 土地国有：中国的房地产市场完全受政府控制，公民无法真正拥有土地产权，只能通过“70年使用权”购买住房。
• 房价受政策影响：政府调控房价，可以通过限购、限贷、税收等手段直接影响房地产市场，这意味着个人无法自由决定自己的住房投资，而是要随时看政策行事。
• 购房 vs. 福利：公务员、国企员工可以通过单位购房、福利房等方式获得更优惠的住房条件，而普通民众则要依赖商业市场，在国家调控下“被迫买房”。

（3）医疗和教育依赖：政府决定资源分配

• 公立医疗：中国的医疗资源主要集中在公立医院，虽然民营医院也存在，但由于公立医院垄断了最优质的医生和设备，普通民众仍然只能依赖政府控制的医疗体系。
• 教育资源：顶级大学基本上是公立的，教育资源也由政府分配，好的学校往往和户籍、政策、学区房等因素挂钩，个人无法自由选择受教育的机会。

    这种依赖模式使得普通民众必须紧跟国家政策调整，因为任何政策变化（如房价调控、教育改革、医疗改革）都会直接影响他们的生存状态。

3. 依赖政治 vs. 依赖福利

    奥罗克（P. J. O'Rourke）批评西方福利国家说：“当政府提供所有基本需求时，人们会变成依赖性的牲畜。”而在中国，虽然政府并没有建立一个“高福利国家”，但它通过政策、资源控制和经济管理，让人民形成了类似的依赖，只不过这种依赖不是经济性的，而是政治性的。

• 西方福利国家的依赖 → 经济依赖：公民依赖国家提供的社会福利，但仍然享有言论自由、政治权利。
• 中国的依赖 → 政治依赖：公民依赖政府的经济管理、资源调控和体制稳定，但必须遵守政治规则，不能自由表达异议。

    在某种意义上，中国政府用“体制资源” 替代了西方政府的“福利供养”，它不直接发放补贴，而是通过住房、医疗、教育、就业等资源的控制，让人民保持对国家的依赖性。

4. 体制内的基督徒：面对信仰与依赖的矛盾

    对于体制内的基督徒而言，这种“政治性依赖”构成了巨大的信仰挑战：

• 信仰 vs. 现实利益：体制内的基督徒需要在“保持职业安全”和“践行信仰”之间找到平衡。在政府要求政治忠诚的环境中，公开表达信仰可能会影响升迁，甚至带来审查风险。
• 依赖体制 vs. 依赖神：基督教的教义强调“信靠神而非世界”，但在中国，许多人的职业、住房、医疗、子女教育都与政府紧密相关，这让基督徒很难真正摆脱对体制的依赖。
• 自由 vs. 稳定：基督徒需要思考，在政府提供的“稳定”环境下，如何坚守信仰，不被政治压力同化，同时又能在体制内继续生存。

    这就引发了一个问题：一个依赖体制的人，如何真正活出信仰的自由？ 这是许多体制内基督徒面临的实际困境。

5. 思考问题：如何在依赖中寻找自由？

    面对这种政治性依赖，普通人和基督徒都需要思考：如何在依赖体制的同时，不被体制完全掌控？

1. 增强独立思考能力：不盲目接受官方宣传，学习逻辑思维和批判性思维，在信息审查的环境下寻找真实信息。
2. 培养经济独立性：减少对体制的经济依赖，比如投资理财、发展个人技能，增加多元化收入来源。
3. 建立信仰社区：基督徒可以在合法范围内，建立家庭教会或小组团契，互相支持，帮助彼此在信仰中成长，而不是完全依赖国家的宗教政策。
4. 寻找平衡点：在追求信仰和生存之间，找到合适的方式，比如在体制内低调持守信仰，同时利用现有资源为社会做贡献。

    请朋友们思考的核心问题是：如果国家控制了你的经济、住房、医疗、教育，它是否也就控制了你的思想和信仰？这不仅仅是中国的问题，也是世界各国公民在面对政府权力时需要思考的问题。

Does the Pursuit of Freedom and Welfare Depend on Politics?

Introduction:I have long wondered why so many people in our society scramble to become civil servants or enter state-owned enterprises—in other words, why they are so eager for “within-the-system” work. What exactly are they pursuing? Is it financial freedom or welfare freedom? Looking at their lifestyles, however, it hardly seems that way. It was not until today when I saw a picture on X (formerly Twitter) reposted by Elon Musk that I took a closer look and compared it with domestic conditions. Slowly, I began to understand the reason: citizens’ welfare does not equal freedom of life. Below is a write-up for your reference.

“It is not an endless list of expanded rights—rights to education, rights to healthcare, rights to food and housing. That is not freedom; that is dependency. Those aren’t rights; they are rations of slavery—hay and the granaries for human cattle.” – P.J. O’Rourke

Part I: P.J. O’Rourke’s View on Welfare and Freedom

This picture displays a famous quote by American political commentator P.J. O’Rourke. In his words, he criticizes an ever-expanding interpretation of “rights,” especially regarding the notion that the government should provide welfare. His core points are as follows:

1. Questioning “Endlessly Expanding Rights”

O’Rourke notes that in modern society some people believe that “rights” should continuously expand—for example: the right to education, the right to health care, the right to food and housing. However, he argues that these are not “freedoms” in the traditional sense but rather create a dependency on the government. His concern is that if the government provides everything that people need, citizens will become overly reliant on the state instead of striving to obtain these resources through their own efforts.

• Dependency on Government Is Not Freedom, but a Form of Control

The essence of O’Rourke’s argument is that when the government supplies all the necessities for survival, it effectively wields control over its citizens. This “dependency” is not freedom; it is a kind of de facto enslavement—citizens must obey the government in exchange for its welfare provisions. He uses the term “human cattle” to describe this state, implying that such dependency turns people into livestock that is fed, thereby robbing them of independence and free will. This viewpoint reflects a libertarian position: true freedom does not lie in having everything provided by the government, but in individuals being able to create their own lives. If the government controls your food, housing, and healthcare, it can in turn control your actions, thoughts, and choices.

• Contrasting “Freedom” with “Enslavement”

O’Rourke’s metaphor suggests that genuine rights should allow people the freedom to pursue these goods on their own rather than having them handed directly over by the state. When the government provides too much welfare, society becomes like a vast farm where citizens are raised and managed—stripped of true independence.

This perspective aligns with the views of several libertarian economists, such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, who argue that excessive government intervention and welfare state policies diminish individual self-reliance and impede the proper functioning of a market economy. In their view, the more the government provides, the greater its control becomes—and consequently, the less individual freedom exists.

Of course, this viewpoint is contentious:

• Social Democrats and Welfare State Advocates argue that a basic safety net is a fundamental human right rather than “enslavement.” For instance, many European nations offer universal healthcare, free education, and robust social security—all while maintaining democracies.
• Policy Realists contend that moderate welfare policies can reduce social inequality and boost overall productivity without rendering citizens dependent.
• Conservatives and Libertarians are more likely to agree with O’Rourke, believing that the government should not excessively interfere in personal lives but should encourage market forces and individual initiative.

In short, O’Rourke’s view reflects the core claim of American libertarian thought: true freedom means that individuals can support themselves rather than depend on government largesse. If the government controls the essentials of life, it also controls the freedom of its citizens. Overdependence on state welfare turns society into a kind of farmstead rather than a free, competitive marketplace.

This quotation indeed raises an important discussion: Where are the limits to rights? How large should the government’s responsibility be? And how should a society balance freedom and welfare?

Part II: Comparing P.J. O’Rourke’s Views with China’s Government Model

O’Rourke criticizes the notion of unendingly expanding “rights,” arguing that when the government assumes responsibility for education, healthcare, housing, and food, citizens become highly dependent on the state and consequently lose their true freedom. This perspective emerged in Western countries—especially those influenced by libertarian ideas—as a critique of big government and welfare state models.

When we compare this viewpoint to the Chinese government’s mode of governance, we observe an interesting contrast.

1. China’s “Strong State Model”: A Mix of Control and Welfare

Unlike the high-welfare societies of Northern or Western Europe, China’s government has not established an extensive welfare state. However, it ensures citizens’ dependence on the state in other ways, thereby keeping tight control over nearly every aspect of social life.

• Basic Social Guarantees: While China is not a comprehensive welfare state, it does provide a minimum social security system (such as basic healthcare, pensions, and low-rent housing). However, these guarantees are often partial and limited to certain groups (for instance, urban residents or state enterprise employees), while rural migrant workers and private-sector employees frequently cannot access the same benefits.
  • State Dominance Over All: The Chinese government exerts strong intervention in multiple fields—economy, finance, information, education, and housing—so much so that citizens’ daily lives depend largely on policy decisions rather than on the free choices of the marketplace. For example, one’s housing situation is dictated by government land policies and real estate controls; high-quality medical resources are concentrated in public hospitals; and the education system is centrally managed, with curricula required to conform to official ideology. Employment opportunities in many industries still depend heavily on state-owned enterprises or government-supported institutions.

On the surface, this does not form a “high-welfare society” in the Western sense. Instead, it creates a dependency on the state because citizens are forced to abide by state-controlled resource allocation. This model is not based on providing direct cash benefits but rather on the state’s tight control of resources, which compels people to rely on the system—a “political dependency” distinct from the “welfare dependency” criticized by O’Rourke.

• China-Style “Rights” and Government Control

O’Rourke argues that when the government provides unlimited welfare, citizens become like “human cattle”—fed by the state and stripped of independence. However, the Chinese government does not provide excessive welfare as much as it strictly controls the definition of rights to ensure that citizens’ behavior conforms to national interests. In China, citizens’ “rights” are limited and conditional:

• Freedom of Speech: Strictly restricted; criticism of the government can have severe consequences.
  • Property Rights: Land is owned by the state; individuals only possess “usage rights.”
  • Freedom of Movement: The household registration (hukou) system still affects social status and access to benefits.
  • Voting Rights: Citizens cannot freely elect national leaders; only limited grassroots elections exist.

These rights, though they exist, enable the government to maintain high dependency without resorting to “welfare” in the Western sense. This method differs from O’Rourke’s criticism of welfare states that make citizens dependent; here, dependency is created by “limited supply plus power control.”

• Comparing with Western Welfare States

O’Rourke’s criticism targets welfare policies of left-leaning governments in the West, where, for example, citizens in some countries receive free education, free healthcare, and basic living guarantees—ensuring that basic survival is not a concern. Libertarian critics argue that such policies lead to dependency, diminishing individual initiative. China’s model, by contrast, does not directly provide high welfare but relies on economic regulation, administrative orders, and social controls to ensure dependency. Citizens are not “farmed” directly by welfare handouts, but they remain confined by state control over critical resources such as real estate, healthcare, education, and finance. In Western nations, government control is exercised primarily through high taxation and welfare systems; in China, control is exerted more via information censorship, the household registration system, and policy interventions.

• Totalitarianism vs. High Welfare: Two Different Forms of Dependency

O’Rourke’s core argument is that when a government provides too much welfare, citizens become dependent—eventually resembling “human cattle.” In many Western welfare states, dependency manifests when people rely on government handouts rather than working hard; for instance, universal healthcare might discourage personal savings for medical costs, and overreliance on education systems might stunt independent thought. In China, however, dependency takes on a different form: it is not that people rely on government welfare, but that they are bound by state control. For example, soaring housing prices—coupled with state regulation of the real estate market—prevent people from breaking away from state-dictated norms. Healthcare and education are controlled by the state, and social mobility is hindered by systemic restrictions. It is not that the government “feeds” you, but that it curtails your independence. Thus, while Western dependency is economic, Chinese dependency is predominantly political.

• Impact on Christians Within the System

For Christians working within the system, these dynamics present complex challenges:

• Restricted Faith: Openly expressing one’s Christian faith in state-run institutions may risk one’s career—affecting promotions, drawing political scrutiny, or incurring social pressure.
  • Dependency vs. Freedom: Within the system, benefits such as housing, healthcare, and pensions depend on the state; detaching oneself from the system may mean sacrificing stability. Yet core Christian teachings emphasize spiritual freedom and reliance on God rather than on governmental support—a stark contrast to system-dependent thinking.
  • Maintaining Faith: Christians within the system must wisely balance the demands of both reality and faith. They should not blindly conform to the state but must also exercise caution in a high-pressure environment. Establishing a robust support network within the family and church is essential so that one can practice one’s faith in the constrained space available.

In summary, O’Rourke’s view reminds us not to abandon personal freedom simply because the government provides benefits. In China, however, citizens’ dependency does not stem from receiving too much welfare but from the state’s pervasive control. In the West, people might become dependent on welfare; in China, people are forced to depend on state policies and controls.

For Christians, this means that in pursuing freedom of faith we must also be wary of any kind of dependence on the system—whether economic or political. Ultimately, true freedom does not come from the government; it comes from trusting in God and holding fast to truth.

Part III: Politics as an “Equivalent” Provider of Welfare for the People

From the perspective of people’s dependency, China’s political system plays a role somewhat similar to “welfare.” Although it does not provide comprehensive social security like Western welfare states, it binds people’s livelihoods to state stability through policies, administrative controls, and economic interventions. This model makes citizens’ lives depend not only on economic resources but also on the regime itself, forming a kind of “state dependency” distinct from the Western model.

1. Systemic Welfare vs. Economic Welfare:

In Western welfare states (e.g., the Nordic countries, France, or Germany), the government provides:

• Universal Healthcare: Citizens can access medical services at low or no cost.
• Social Insurance: Unemployment or low-income individuals receive support.
• Educational Guarantees: In some countries, even higher education is free.
• Housing Subsidies: Poor families can apply for government-supported housing.

In these nations, while citizens rely on governmental welfare to sustain themselves, that dependency is economic and does not directly curtail personal political freedom. By contrast, the Chinese government does not provide such an expansive welfare system. Yet, people still become dependent on the state. This dependency is evident in:

• Social Stability Through Economic Development: Many believe that “national development brings job opportunities and wealth,” so they depend on the economic benefits delivered by state policies rather than on free market forces.
• Job Security Within the System: Civil servants and employees of state-owned enterprises enjoy job security along with housing and healthcare benefits, while private sector workers are at the mercy of government economic policies, which can abruptly collapse industries such as education, training, or the internet.
• A Sense of Safety Under Social Control: Through tight social management (for example, surveillance and censorship), the government makes many ordinary people feel that “stability is more important than freedom,” reinforcing reliance on state governance.

This model does not involve directly handing out cash or welfare; rather, it is the state’s tight control over resources that forces citizens to depend on the system—a politically driven welfare mechanism.

• Political Welfare: The Hidden Mechanism of Systemic Dependence

In China, even if people do not directly receive subsidies from the state, a deep “invisible dependence” on the government is formed because the way the system operates makes it very difficult for individuals to act independently. This dependence is evident in several areas:

(1) Employment Dependence – State Protection vs. Market Competition:

For those within the system (such as civil servants, state enterprise employees, or staff in public institutions), the benefits—pensions, housing, healthcare—are far more stable than in the free market, leading to high dependence on government jobs.

For people outside the system (such as those in private enterprises or self-employed individuals), government economic policies (such as those impacting real estate, taxes, or financial regulation) are the major determinants of market stability. Changes in state policy can lead to the sudden collapse of entire industries, resulting in mass unemployment. This leads to a dependency on state policies that far exceeds any reliance on the market itself.

(2) Housing Dependence – Government Control of Property Prices Leaves No Escape:

• State Ownership of Land: In China, all land is owned by the state. Citizens cannot truly own land; they can only purchase housing with “70-year usage rights.”

• Housing Prices Affected by Policy: The government can directly influence the real estate market through measures such as purchase restrictions, lending limits, and taxes, meaning individuals cannot independently decide on housing investments.

• Home Purchase vs. Welfare: Civil servants or state enterprise employees may access preferential housing through workplace or welfare programs, whereas ordinary citizens must rely on the commercial market, being “forced” to buy houses under state regulation.

(3) Healthcare and Education Dependence – State-Determined Resource Allocation:

• Public Healthcare: Medical resources in China are mainly concentrated in public hospitals. Although private hospitals exist, public hospitals monopolize the best doctors and equipment, leaving ordinary citizens dependent on the state-controlled healthcare system.

• Educational Resources: Top universities are mostly public, and education resources are allocated by the government. Admission to good schools is often tied to one’s household registration, policy, and the location of one’s school district, preventing individuals from having complete freedom of educational choice.

This dependence forces ordinary citizens to closely follow state policy adjustments because any change in policy (whether regarding housing, education, or healthcare) directly affects their livelihoods.

• Extreme Dependence: Comparing Political Control with Western Welfare

In Western welfare states, as O’Rourke critiques, the dependency arises when citizens rely on government support, potentially resulting in diminished independent drive. In contrast, in China the dependency is not due to excessive welfare per se but rather to the state’s control over resources.

• In Western nations, the government controls individuals primarily through high taxes and an expansive welfare system.

• In China, the government’s control is more about information censorship, the household registration system, and policy intervention.

O’Rourke’s key point is that if the government provides too much, citizens become dependent—ultimately turning them into “human cattle.” In many Western countries, such dependency is economic: welfare recipients might come to rely on government aid rather than work diligently; universal healthcare may discourage personal savings for medical needs; excessive reliance on the government-run education system may stunt independent thought. By contrast, the dependency in China is primarily political: it is not that citizens are fed by welfare, but that the state’s tight grasp on resources—such as the highly regulated real estate market, government-controlled healthcare and education, and inhibited social mobility—prevents them from living independently. In other words, while in the West dependency is predominantly economic, in China it is chiefly political.

• Christians Within the System: Confronting the Tension Between Faith and Dependency

For Christians working within state institutions, this “political dependency” poses significant challenges to their faith:

• Faith vs. Material Interests: Christians in the system must balance “maintaining job security” with “living out their faith.” In an environment where political loyalty is demanded, openly expressing one’s faith might hamper career advancement or even incur censorship risks.
• Dependence on the System vs. Dependence on God: Christianity teaches us to “trust in God rather than in the world.” Yet, in China, many people’s careers, housing, healthcare, and children’s education are closely tied to government policies, making it difficult for Christians to truly free themselves from systemic dependence.
• Freedom vs. Stability: Christians must consider how to firmly hold onto their faith in an environment that offers stability by means of state support, without being assimilated by political pressures—all while continuing to live within the system.

This raises a key question: How can someone who is dependent on the system truly live out the freedom of their faith? This is a very real dilemma for many Christians working within state-controlled structures.

• Reflecting on the Question: How to Find Freedom Within Dependency?

In facing political dependency, both ordinary citizens and Christians need to consider how to avoid being completely controlled by the system while still relying on it. Some strategies include:

1. Enhancing Independent Thinking:

Do not accept official propaganda blindly; instead, develop logical and critical thinking skills to seek out genuine information, even in an environment subject to information censorship.

• Cultivating Economic Independence:

Reduce economic reliance on the system by, for example, engaging in investment, developing personal skills, and diversifying one’s income sources.

• Building a Faith Community:

Christians can, within legal limits, establish family churches or small fellowship groups to support one another and encourage spiritual growth rather than depending entirely on state-directed religious policies.

• Finding a Balance:

Strive to balance the demands of faith and survival by, for instance, quietly maintaining one’s faith within the system while using available resources to contribute positively to society.

As P.J. O’Rourke’s viewpoint reminds us, welfare that creates dependency is not freedom. In China, the reliance on state policy—whether through limited social welfare or direct resource control—forces citizens into a situation where personal freedom is curtailed. Ultimately, both economic welfare in the West and state-controlled dependency in China restrict true human freedom.

For Christians, this means the pursuit of freedom—both in a material and spiritual sense—must be understood in light of reliance on God rather than on any political system. Individual liberty, genuine creativity, and true wellbeing are found not in the promises of state benefits but in trusting God, pursuing truth, and living by His principles.

The essential question to ponder is: If the state controls your economy, housing, healthcare, and education, does it also control your thoughts and beliefs? This is not just a Chinese issue but a challenge faced by citizens worldwide when confronted with governmental power.