I don't think that is given. My home country Norway is mainly liberal but we give a lot to charity. But as a liberal myself, I don't really favor charity. I fa

I don't think that is given. My home country Norway is mainly liberal but we give a lot to charity. But as a liberal myself, I don't really favor charity. I favor government solutions. I'd rather pay more taxes than pay to a charity directly. The problem I see with charity is that (1) they can't provide comprehensive solutions, (2) vulnerable to the free rider problem, (3) inefficient as much resources needs to be spent collecting donations. By comprehensive solution I mean that a lot of poverty is caused by complex set of factors. E.g. the person might lack job skills and have a mental health problem. Thus they need mental health care and a job training program. Putting together something like that is something a modern welfare state is quite capable of doing, while charity doesn't really have a solution. Charity is for giving you food when you are hungry or giving your emergency care. Charity is poorly suited for having a long term medical follow up e.g. of high risk groups. E.g. Norway has one of the worlds best statistics for infant mortality. A lot of that is because there are extensive checkups through the pregnancy. Everything related to a pregnancy is completely free. For other health care there is usually a minimum fee. The US in the contrast has terrible infant mortality rate and that is mainly due to poor checkups. Charity in the US has been unable to solve that problem. All they can do is give hungry people food or patch them up. Charity can't solve systematic problems.