Most people probably don't believe that the state can solve every problem, but a large portion of people do believe that the state (and even only the state) can solve certain extremely important problems, like building infrastructure, producing a legal system, and producing a monetary system and economy.
The further into the past a decision regarding the State solving a problem for a society was made, the more its citizens today assume that decision was the best option and the private sector failed. This assumption is often based on the fact that there are no, or very few, competing alternatives left to solve that problem.
The reason there are very few remaining alternatives is largely because (in most systems of government today) the State has taken tax dollars from the private sector's solutions, thus starving them of resources, to fund it's own competing solution. So, the State is taking resources from it's competitors and then provide an alternative (normally at subsidized prices), which makes it's competitor's market share smaller and also sets pricing at unsustainable levels. There is only one outcome, ever, to this type of arrangement, regardless of whether or not the State actually offered the best solution to its citizens.
> The reason there are very few remaining alternatives is largely because (in most systems of government today) the State has taken tax dollars from the private sector's solutions, thus starving them of resources, to fund it's own competing solution.
I find this very doubtful indeed. The state by and large spends money on things the private sector has no interest in, such as welfare systems; I fail to see how this starves/steals from private sector solutions (no one makes money by supporting old people; no one makes money providing medical help for the poor; no one makes money by polluting less; no one makes money off going to the moon, though lots of people make money off the research that comes from it, etc.)
I don't have time right now to dig up data on it because I have to get going, but from a financial efficiency point of view, donating directly to private organizations that perform welfare services is an order of magnitude more effective than letting the State tax you and then redistribute your money to welfare services. The issue is the way our tax system is designed right now, it makes more sense for private individuals to keep their money until the government takes it by force to give to those in need, than for those individuals to contribute directly.
Rich people don't get rich by giving away money. I've heard plenty of stories about private non-profits that spend significant percentages of their take on administrative costs and similar. Not to say they're all like that; but then, neither is the government.
2% or less admin costs looks pretty good. A universal basic income system would be better, but I'd be interested to see some private charities that do better than this.
There are plenty of historical examples where a state had to (and did) use force to prevent private individuals or organizations from offering certain services.
> the private sector has no interest in, such as welfare systems
Absolutely false. Children take care of their parents, families take care of each other, friends offer housing and food to their friends. At best you can argue that the private sector has stepped back to the extent the state has stepped in.
Every phrase you wrote has an implicit conditional in it:
> Children may take care of their parents, families may take care of each other, friends might offer housing and food to their friends.
At least one theoretical advantage to the state system that rarely gets talked about is that while its assistance also has the same conditionals, at least in principle, the conditionals are dependent on objective criteria. The state of your relationship to friends and family is immaterial; you don't have to accept terms imposed by religious charities or other organizations that will attach moralistic strings.
I disagree that a significant portion of people think that. I think most reasoning goes like this: we have to form an organization to accomplish x, there's already an organization doing y, maybe it makes sense for it to do x too rather than make a whole new organization.
>>maybe it makes sense for it to do x too rather than make a whole new organization.
For one, by having multiple private sector organizations competing to solve a problem, you spread the wealth around society more evenly than if the government were the only one doing x.
Second, new ideas and better ways to do x can come from anywhere. By having only one organization doing x, you have to convince the person in charge of organization doing x to change how they do x in order to do x in the better way. If you have multiple, competing organizations trying to do x, the one who decides to do x in a better way gets rewarded by serving more customers and making more money.
Third, if you only have one organization doing x, when that organization fails to do x, then everyone who depends on x gets screwed. By having more organizations doing x, if one fails, there are always others to serve customers who depend on x.
I think I've become your straw man. I was not advocating. I was explaining why I think org y ends up doing x too when it's already been decided an org needs to be formed to solve a problem that the market is not or cannot solve.
Understood, and agree that when it makes sense to do so, it should be done, in the private sector - e.g., Amazon offering cloud services on the back of their excess server capacity. The difference between the private sector doing this and government though lies in what happens when failure occurs. That's what I want others to understand.
I think everyone agrees that the private sector should do everything it can. It's a spectrum. Most problems the market can solve just fine. Some problems it cannot without the power of taxation (no free riding). The cut off line is hotly debated. Arguably the line shifts with technological advances.
