4 ms·

A lot of people, me included, would argue that the state, as inefficient as it is, is doing much better than private charity would, and has historically done.

• pdonis 6y ago
  > A lot of people, me included, would argue that the state, as inefficient as it is, is doing much better than private charity would, and has historically done. I would want to see a lot of data to back this up--and it would have to be accurate data, including accurate data on how often the state makes things worse instead of actually helping. I don't have such accurate data on a global scale, and I don't think you do either. The state does not even measure how much harm its employees do; it has no incentive to do so. > "we have an idea that could in theory replace them" is not the same as "we have the structures in place and shown capable to replace them". "Replace" assumes that the current structures are providing a net benefit. If they're actually a net cost--if they do more harm than good, all things considered, which I suspect is true for the state if we could actually get accurate data on all the harm as well as all the good--then replacing them with nothing whatever would still be a net gain. Of course replacing them with something that actually did the job the state is supposed to do would be better still, but the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.