Comment by woodruffw
I think there’s too many layers of counterfactuals here: much of the government’s economic intervention stems from a (perceived) need that transcends ordinary economic concerns. Think wars, epidemics, famines, etc.
In other words, I think we’d need to presume the absence of those concerns to intelligibly consider the absence of taxation-funded interventions. And that’s more of a minarchst fever dream than a thing that could actually happen.
Sure. Maybe the market will provide food security in 98% of years on its own, but we need more 9's. And we obviously need our government to be coercive enough to protect us from outside, less benevolent, forms of coercion.
At the same time, this isn't a "yes/no" question. This is thousands of sliders that we adjust for each industry.
You always have to consider the opportunity cost. Sure, perhaps we've ended greater security and have also ended up with vibrant industry A at the end of it; but we maybe had to pay by hurting industries B, C, and D. It might be worth it; but it doesn't mean it makes sense to do it for industry Z where there is a smaller security benefit.