I'd wager that the vast majority of us love having a choice when it comes to being faced with a situation that presents different possible paths (though, we probably take it for granted). They love having this choice, because it's the opposite of not having a choice - being forced into a particular path by some other entity. We love being able to decide how to live our lives, choosing where to live, who to love, what to do, what to buy; we love picking the one favorite flavor of ice cream among the 31, even if we don't consciously recognize it at the time. However, we don't like when we're not given a choice over our personal life, whether in part or in whole. We don't enjoy when we're mugged at gunpoint, given a "choice" between our life and our valuables; we don't like to pay taxes, given a "choice" between incarceration and our hard-earned money. Maintaining a person's sovereignty over their own life requires they be free to choose and act in any situation they face; to maintain a person's serfdom, deny them the ability to choose and act by threatening them with the use of force.
The welfare state rests on the idea that we are all our brothers' keepers (whether or not certain individuals under that "we" don't wish to be), and that government is the framework for dispensing that care. Those of us who produce, who pull our own weight in order to live our lives without want for the basic necessities and little luxuries, have the weight of others attached to us, in the form of taxes that the government appropriates from us. This money is taken with the "choice" of jail, becoming a citizen in another country (though, I don't know of a country on earth that doesn't tax its citizens), or foregoing the money we've earned. This money then goes to programs designed by bureaucrats for the distribution to those who satisfy the requirements of those programs' standards of need (not counting the money snatched along the way, being used to satisfy the "needs" of the bureaucrats and special interests). Gross misrepresentations of the purpose of the welfare state, intended to hide the actual function of achieving its ends, come in platitudes like "the greater good" and "the good of society". However, there can be no mistake when you stand back and look at how the money flows: money is taken from those who are productive, funneled through and whittled down by the vast maze of government, and dispensed to others. What physical or moral good is being done to those who're milked, by force, for the benefit of others? "The good of society"? Try the good for a few at the expense of the many.
If you argue that it was originally the choice of the majority of people in this country to create the welfare state, that is arguable. Taking it to be true though, for a moment, the thoughts behind the motivation for that majority are less likely to be, "sure, I'll give up some of the money I've earned to help those in need" and more likely to be "all those rich people will be taxed to make things better for the little guy!" If you would be in the former group, I encourage you to fight new entitlement programs and tax increases for social projects, and instead give any money saved privately. If you're in the latter group: what right do you have to the money made by those who've made more than you? Who are you to dispense with their property rights - foundational rights supporting our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? By doing so, you've already given up your own, because the same will apply to you. So don't be surprised when your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are infringed upon for someone else's.
Furthermore, the side effects around the choice of charity and the coercion of wealth redistribution must be considered. Charity, given to an individual or group, often recognizes the personal connection that's made between the giver and the receiver. The receiver, hopefully possessing some amount of self-worth, ambition to fix their own circumstances, and gratitude, does not want to become a burden on the giver, or feel perpetually indebted to the giver. This further motivates the receiver's desire to pull themselves up, making them much more likely to do so. In contrast, welfare given to an individual or group, often obscures the true source of the funds - since it appears it's coming from this giant, limitless entity of government - and can foster no personal connection between the true giver and the receiver. The receiver is then much less likely to feel gratitude and indebtedness, unable to fix it upon any one place in that giant entity of government. And even if they were able to, it would be a false gratitude and indebtedness, as the government is just a middleman in the transaction. So, why give up a good thing, if you're getting free money from this amorphous source? Pulling oneself out of welfare requires work and risk; why not just sit back and collect? The welfare state creates a group of dependents, and reinforces their dependence, by design.
Taking both systems to their logical ends results in one with more productive individuals (with little-to-no poverty), and a more self-reliant, yet generous, culture. The other results in catastrophe, when there are no more producers to feed from, all of them having given up to become dependents themselves, or having been taxed out of existence.
There is nothing wrong with charity, for safety nets in society for those who fall through the cracks, no matter the cause. However, it can be and should be done privately, by the personal choice and generosity of those able to give.
