>the state is bad because it declares war and sends people to their deaths Wouldn't it make more sense to conclude war is bad, rather than states themselves?

>the state is bad because it declares war and sends people to their deaths Wouldn't it make more sense to conclude war is bad, rather than states themselves? >Its projects often go astonishingly over budget, corruption is high in many countries, and its funding is unreliable, as it's prone to not keeping the promises of the people previously in charge All of this I agree with. But the solution isn't "less states" it's... Better states, surely? What am I missing here? My point with the question about where a majority of our infrastructure comes from, (roads, schools, hospitals, water, electricity and sewage systems to specify as a start) the state or the benevolence of philanthropists was to demonstrate that there is quite a bit of evidence as to what structure is the better steward of societies, a bunch of rich guys, or a state with some mandate to do right by its constituents.