Bob Cratchit is a perfect example of somebody to whom no welfare was available and therefore had to work, even though his employer exploited him horribly and he had a sick child who he could barely afford to keep alive. If there were a welfare state then he'd have the option of refusing to work for Scrooge unless he were paid and treated better, but as it was - it was submit to his boss' unreasonable demands or allow his family to die.
Alas, but no. Bob did, in fact, have alternatives. The welfare state in 19th century England may have been underdeveloped when compared with that of today (the government had only just started getting involved), there were programs available to him. It can be assumed (as much as one can make asumptions based on the thoughts of fictional characters) that he was aware of these. Bob could have sought help from any of these institutions. More than likely the outcome would have been less than desireble. His children would have been removed from his family and place in work houses or orphanages, but they would have been cared for.
Other portions of the story (the conversation between husband and wife that Scrooge overhears while in the company of the Ghost of Christmas Present, for example) show that people would rather work than rely on handouts. Even if it meant their own death.
I honestly don't understand how you can persist in holding the viewpoint that most people are on benefits because they're happy and comfortable with things that way.
Perhaps they are not comfortable with things that way, but they are not
uncomfortable enough to want to change. And by change, I mean seek meaningful employment and then WORK to stay employeed. Not everyone is this way, of course. There are those who genuinly need assistance. Far too many, however, rely solely on government programs because they do not care to change their situation.
Incidentally, I also don't really understand why opponents to welfare make such a distinction between 'the state' and 'the people'. Absent excessive corruption or elitism, a democratic state is made of the people; it's just a particular way of organising them.
Yes, it's called a Republic. There are no true democracies. They simply cannot exist.
If you're a taxpayer, voting that the government increases taxation in order to fund benefits for the poor is, in effect, giving money to the poor yourself, albeit with a greater national effect.
And greater government control. The last thing we need to do is hand over money to the government and expect them to use it appropriately. It's never been done.
Finally, I don't think you've yet shown how Scrooge's pre-ghost values differ at all from those of a right-wing libertarian capitalist.
Patience, grasshopper.