Look, I can see that this is coming down more to an ideological and theoretical argument than a fact-based one. You dismissed any evidence that other countries

Look, I can see that this is coming down more to an ideological and theoretical argument than a fact-based one. You dismissed any evidence that other countries have done this better out of hand because in theory those statistics can be corrupted, and you've dismissed the idea that state experts could make the system better because they could also be corrupted. This is the core conservative argument for abolishing just about every government service: "We screwed it up in the past. Rather than trying to fix our past mistakes, we should instead give up." And I am well aware of the problems with the "food pyramid." Your example here ignores the fact that the government has since acknowledged that the original recommendations were wrong, and has been updating them over time to reflect the best research. The argument that "the process can be corrupted therefore we should give up" ignores that it can also be improved over time, and that governments are accountable. "Your argument against this seems to be that, while it hasn't worked here, it theoretically (under some theory you've yet to elucidate) could, because infinite resources by fiat magically translate to infinite productivity and efficiency in real life." I did provide evidence that it could work, which was that it has worked in numerous other countries. You just chose to dismiss that evidence out of hand because you'd rather come up with an excuse to disbelieve it rather than accept that a system you fundamentally disagree with can work. Whether you mean it to or not, it comes off as utterly and completely bad-faith argument to dismiss the evidence I provided out of hand and then tell me several paragraphs later that I haven't adequately described how it can be done. I pointed you in the direction of a perfect example, and yet apparently you haven't even checked to see if it's a valid example. The short version is this: Finland had a crappy education system, and they made a decision as a country to fix it. They approached it with open minds, willing to throw out any ideas that were outdated and not backed up with evidence. What they ended up with was little to no homework, fresh-made school lunches, and the abolition of private schools. (The reason for the last bit is that as long as wealthy people can use private schools as an escape hatch for their own kids, they have zero political incentive to fix the public schools.) You mentioned in another comment that you would absolutely accept a system that rewarded parents who spent more time researching schools, and I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. You want a system that allows people succeed if they have the time and resources to do so. I want a system that does its best for all people, even though that takes a lot more work and coordination. Now, I'm not exactly sure what your motivation for this is. Pessimistically, it looks like a very selfish line of reasoning: Since you have the time and resources and think you're smart enough to choose wisely, you want the choice to do so, and if other people don't have the same opportunities then too bad for them. Or, more optimistically, you just can't imagine a system that works adequately the way I describe, so you just think your way is safer.