To begin, we can all agree that value is subjective, right?
So when a person says, “look at all the good that the state has brought us, such as education for every child”, that person is making a value statement. However, the parents of that child could have used their resources for something else that they would have preferred. Perhaps the parents could have used half the resouces used to educate their child for professional baseball lessons and the remainder for education. Thus, it doesn’t follow that the state’s actions benefit everyone, especially not the parents and their child. Therefore, it necessarily follows that when the state takes resources away from someone and uses those resources for something, other than what the person would have used them for, that someone is being hurt and does not benefit from the actions of the state.
Thus, to say that America was the greatest economy in the 20th century, that we should look at all the good that the government did for us, is to make a value statement. Perhaps the free market would have dedicated less resources towards defense and education, and used those resources elsewhere. Therefore, it does not follow that everyone benefitted, nor that the actions of the government were good for everyone.
So, I actually have a question. Is it a logical fallacy to say that the state is necessary because the state will bring goodness and benefit to some area of society?