In a perfect world in a perfect universe, at least according to Marx, all men (and women) would act as they wished, in a way that would benefit their fellow citizens, without the need of influence either from the state or from others. Sadly, this is not a perfect world, and people are often not inclined to act in such a selfless way and it is because of this human flaw that inspiration is often required, be it divine or the regular, feasible kind. There seems to be no greater parable for this than the Welfare State. Ideally nobody would need it, state control would be limited and humanity would work together to provide equal opportunities for all. Unfortunately in practise this rarely happens, due to the seemingly inevitable greed that comes with success. We are therefore morally obligated – at least in my view – to provide opportunities for those in society that otherwise would be bereft of such privileges. Indeed, one might argue that the ultimate aim of society is to change the perception of such opportunities from being seen as privileges to being rights. The idea holds true with inspiration: while we currently see individuals who inspire others as exceptional, instead they should be the norm, and in striving to become like them we would remove the limelight from them and society as a whole would improve. The paradox here of course is that in striving to naturally be like the people who act inspirationally, in order to remove the need for inspiration, one is in fact taking inspiration from such people. The reason for this is that the human condition in its present state, be it as a result of the capitalist system that we unwittingly propagate, or whether it is merely an intrinsic human instinct, is deeply flawed. To act altruistically does not come naturally to many and because of the subsequent inequality of both opportunity and ability to motivate oneself, both the Welfare State, and Inspiration are needed.