Almost everyone who does so is proud to live in a civilised country. Civilisation emerges from the morals, attitudes, social conduct and sense of fairness that prevails within society. The more inclusive that civilisation and the more people who enjoy the benefits the better it is for society as a whole.
Yet neoliberal economics downplays the role of society and attacks its demands for the taxation and spending it needs to maintain and enhance civilisation. It claims that devoting resources to society deprives enterprise of them and therefore damages society itself. The neoliberal view is that apart from enforcing law, order and property rights the unfettered market will provide all that a civilised society requires, if only it is left alone to do so. But private suppliers only produce things that yield a private profit, and their focus is on the amount of that profit, doing all they can both fair and sometimes foul to maximise it. They can't afford any interest in society as a whole; they only supply things that provide sufficient benefit to individuals to induce individuals to pay for them. In contrast many of the things that civilisation requires benefit society as a whole, so no individual will pay for them in isolation and no profit is available to suppliers. How can the unfettered market give us clean streets; public parks; freely available libraries, galleries and museums; a national defence capability; emergency services; food and clothes for destitute people; and so on? Clearly it can't. The only way that private businesses will provide for society's needs is if society pays them to do so, and to do that society needs resources that neoliberals would withhold.
A BBC2 programme broadcast late in 2016 - 'The Victorian Slum' - showed the filthy and disease-ridden conditions in which the Victorian poor had to live, work and bring up their children, and graphically illustrated the constant stress that they were under as they fought to keep themselves and their children alive. Those conditions were a product of the laissez-faire unfettered market system that prevailed at that time, and thanks to neoliberalism and the rediscovery of its 'universal benefits' we are moving back in that direction. We aren't there yet but we'll get there soon if we carry on as we are.
But this paints a very unfair picture of private suppliers. We should recognise that they have to operate in that way because if they don't they will lose their business. Private supply is a world of fierce competition, a world that is hostile and dangerous; it requires all the skill and guile that a supplier can muster just to stay afloat, the freedom conflict requires it as explained in the Introduction.
It would be quite wrong to blame private suppliers for not providing for society as a whole, we should blame neoliberalism for claiming that they will. The only way to pay for things that benefit the whole of society is for the whole of society, represented by a democratically elected government, to pay for them. The alternative is to restrict civilised life to a privileged class who are able to pay for benefits that are denied to the non-privileged. That form of civilisation largely prevailed until the First World War and declined thereafter, but is now re-emerging with a vengeance as the gap between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' increases remorselessly. This is what neoliberalism seems to want and certainly what it brings about - a divided society. It did so before the First World War and it is doing so again today.
It seems inconceivable that that is what society as a whole wants. It certainly seems to be what the privileged want but even their best interests aren't served by it - see chapter 97 and in particular figure 97.5.
I have emphasised society and civilisation because these are environments that we can identify with in a positive manner. Governments are often felt to lie outside society, and even to be hostile to it. Yet a democratically elected government is no more and no less than the body that speaks and acts on behalf of society. It is society's agent, providing society's power base, and it has that power only because society has granted it - a democratic government is the servant of society. If in society's opinion it fails to represent society or society's interests properly then it is society that discharges it and appoints a new agent. However it is no longer enough to appoint a new agent because the free international movement of capital, more than anything else, has taken power away from governments - all governments - and democracy away from society - see chapter 74. It's the free movement of capital that gives so much power to investors in stock markets and foreign exchange markets, and to multinational corporations. So much so that whenever governments wish to take action their concern is always: 'How will the markets react?' Or, when a government does act everyone's eyes turn immediately to 'the markets' to see how they have reacted. This shows where true power lies, not with governments but with faceless markets, also known as 'The City' or 'Wall Street'. This is no way to run a country or a world.
Distrust of governments has increased as their love affair with finance and big business has blossomed and their support for traditional industries and manufacturing has been progressively withdrawn. Most working people feel distanced from finance and big business because their inner workings are hidden and therefore mysterious, whereas most industries are relatively straightforward. Nevertheless the government represents society; finance and big business certainly don't; and society has real needs that only government can address.
A government that is seen to be working on behalf of the whole of society, rather than favouring the wealthy while trying to convince us that such favour is in society's best interests, will win respect and wide support. For that to happen we need to re-establish a genuine democracy where one person one vote has real meaning, instead of the present system that works on the principle of one pound one vote.