These values have a pretty large overlap. I suspect the real difference is in the US belief in personal destiny, in other words that people not only can can be self-sufficient, but would be if external interference were removed. They don’t see it as the universe itself being difficult and humanity collectively creating a solution. They know the game is rigged to keep them poor, property-less, and dependent, but they see social programs and corporate/wealth interests as about equally responsible for that (as in fact they are often well aligned in practice, since in practice the wealthy get what they want no matter what they call it), as opposed to the magic of personal willpower. So the slogan “no one in need” doesn’t sound benign at all, and “freedom” sounds like the path to fulfillment.
Either way, in the US, the reason to remove need would be to have more freedom, and the result of freedom is the elimination of need.
These values have a pretty large overlap. I suspect the real difference is in the US belief in personal destiny, in other words that people not only can can be self-sufficient, but would be if external interference were removed. They don’t see it as the universe itself being difficult and humanity collectively creating a solution. They know the game is rigged to keep them poor, property-less, and dependent, but they see social programs and corporate/wealth interests as about equally responsible for that (as in fact they are often well aligned in practice, since in practice the wealthy get what they want no matter what they call it), as opposed to the magic of personal willpower. So the slogan “no one in need” doesn’t sound benign at all, and “freedom” sounds like the path to fulfillment.
Either way, in the US, the reason to remove need would be to have more freedom, and the result of freedom is the elimination of need.