I prefer much to lean on the evidence than the potential of trust. Where govt is effective at regulation as a result of public and private agreed upon standards

I prefer much to lean on the evidence than the potential of trust. Where govt is effective at regulation as a result of public and private agreed upon standards, I have a hard time extending this beyond that (apart from areas where govt has proven to be better at funneling resources to the right places, to a fault), it is not the same as arguing wholesale for blanket trust. One example is not evidence that one should be blind fully trustful of an entity (who at plenty of occasions) has also broken that trust with mass warrantless surveillance (issue of broken trust) Or in other cases where the welfare system itself has produced artificial disincentives to get higher paying work (issue of trust due to inefficiencies or failure of common goods) Thoughtful discussions aside, the people most suited to both care about and solve the problem set are the ones I would most likely lean on. This isn’t necessarily an anarchist position, it’s one of cautious skepticism over blanket trust without industry specific evidence to prove that the govt is in fact better at handling time, money, and increasingly efficient gains. I haven’t seen a lot of evidence to prove that the govt is particularly good at handling the first two. That all being said, I don’t see it as an all or nothing. Follow the evidence and the data.