In his book Abundance, Generosity, and the State<\/strong><\/em>, the German economist J\u00f6rg Guido H\u00fclsmann asks a simple but unsettling question: what happens to that gesture when help stops being voluntary? What happens when almsgiving becomes a benefit, and care for one\u2019s neighbour turns into a procedure?<\/p>\n\n\n\n A gift is voluntary by definition. If someone gives something away under threat of punishment, we cannot call it generosity<\/strong>. And yet contemporary language increasingly blurs that distinction. We describe taxes as a \u201ccontribution to the common good\u201d, and public benefits as \u201chelp for those in need\u201d. H\u00fclsmann argues that these belong to two entirely different orders<\/strong>. In one, I give because I want to. In the other, I give because I must.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why does that distinction matter? Because it concerns the very meaning of goodness<\/strong>. Can someone be forced to be good? And if so, is what we do under compulsion still truly good? H\u00fclsmann does not offer a direct answer, but he clearly leads the reader toward one conclusion: once goodness becomes procedure, it loses its essence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n H\u00fclsmann points to 19th-century England. For centuries, help for the poor had depended on local initiatives: parishes, guilds and neighbourly collections. In 1834<\/strong>, Parliament commissioned an inquiry into the public support system then in place, known as the Poor Laws<\/em>. The resulting report revealed something surprising. The more state aid expanded, the less authentic solidarity remained. The system did not simply support those in need. It also demoralised them, weakened their motivation to remain self-reliant <\/strong>and eroded social bonds<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the basis of those findings, the Poor Laws were reformed and public assistance was sharply reduced. Then something happened that today may seem paradoxical. As the state withdrew, private initiative in England began to flourish. Thousands of mutual-aid associations appeared<\/strong> \u2014 the Friendly Societies <\/em>\u2014 bringing together millions of members. These were ordinary families who set aside money together in case of illness, death or unemployment. When someone fell ill, they received support. When someone died, their family was surrounded with care. The system worked because it rested on trust, reciprocity and shared responsibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\nGenerosity and Social Solidarity<\/h2>\n\n\n\n