There are different versions of a saying I just saw on Twitter: “The State can give you nothing, because it produces nothing.” The statement does not challenge anything fundamental I believe. On the contrary, it would seem to buttress some of my arguments. The problem, however, is that it is false.
The State certainly produces something in the economic sense, that is, goods and services that somebody is willing to pay for. The State may waste resources in its production, including by producing certain goods and services whose costs no consumer would be willing to pay. But many are willing to pay for the enforcement of the rule of law, which requires police and courts, as well as for national defense (which would be better named “territorial defense”). It is true that, given the inefficiencies of government production, people pay more in taxes for these and other public services, but this does not change the fact that there are goods and services that many are happy to consume even given their tax cost for them. Assuming there were no state, many if not most people would be willing to pay private producers (associations or for-profit companies) to produce some of the services they are now compelled to buy through taxes. And of course, if a state, on net, in some meaningful sense, destroys more value than it produces, anarchy would be the solution.
The reader intrigued by the last two sentences and who wishes to explore the economics of anarchy should find a few useful...
accused of False Claims Act violations, ruling its claims were "clearly vexatious" because the provider knowingly ordered medically unnecessary tests to support its suit. . . . Law360 is on it, so ...