Nothing that the government provides is actually 'free'.
-
Why does it increase the likelihood that the funds are efficiently allocated for social welfare if the money is first forcefully expropriated from private earners, and then allocated by unelected bureaucrats with no skin in the game and strong principal-agent problems?
-
-
I'm grappling with what it means for it to be "OK" for a govt to do any particular thing when its purposes are supposedly constitutionally defined but clearly effectively in flux. Assuming it's compelled to do *some* things, there are more & less cost-effective ways to do them.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I think if government was at least as or more efficient, the arguments for private property would be a lot weaker and hinge on abstract morality ("individual liberty is good"). In that hypothetical, would it be moral to sacrifice overall societal welfare for a little liberty?
- 2 more replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.