the state faces means/ends problems and so if it sets out to do one thing it will fail. Yet I wonder that 1) if failure is something that a state is efficient at doing (the means leads to the end) and 2) if it is,then wouldn’t the state be efficient at causing harm? But if that is true, then the state doesn’t really face means-ends problems? Can anyone help me with this?
I think the best answer I could give is it is all relative. The state could plausibly help some groups at the expense of others. For example lazy parasites/the unproductive (take politicians for example) or maye a business crony. So failure is something the state is great at doing from only a certain angle. From the angle of an unproductive/bought off agent the state is great at providing them. Also from the angle of wanting to achieve something by force (through the use of politics/ the “magic” of democracy) the state serves that need well. For example, If I wanted to bring down BIG CORP for being environmentally unfreindy/ a monopolist/ non union/ or whatever the state may be an effective and efficient means for me to shut down a succeful business that is otherwise doing legit profitable business.
If you mean the state is effective at one thing, i.e. acting incompatibly with people’s preferences (other than its criminal elite’s) and lowering productibity, then yes, definitely it is effective at those things.