[hi_im_miles]

> Governments by their very nature, and democratic ones especially, are supposed to be about charging taxes and redistributing that wealth for the better good.

The idea that democracies allocate resources efficiently (as in, "for the greater good") is one that I do not agree with. If a democratic majority conclude that harsh restrictions on immigration is beneficial for them (as they suppress the bargaining power over wages/benefits of those who immigrated illegally anyway), then maintaining these restrictions would be democracy as intended. However, you'd still end up with a significant underclass and thus an inefficient outcome.

I think even a cursory analysis of the state would lead you conclude that governments don't efficiently allocate resources in any meaningful sense, but they do allocate resources very well from those who are disadvantaged by its policy to those who are privileged by it, democratic or not.

[Supermancho]

> However, you'd still end up with a significant underclass and thus an inefficient outcome.

Forget immigration, the USA had slavery, which too, went away due to the natural forces of the democracy (and liberty of man). I subscribe to the notion that The US Constitution always had eventual emancipation of the slaves in mind, during the drafting (typical political can kicking).

Over time, the choices that affect an underclass are more lenient, as the underclasses vote in their own interest. Short term, there can always be less efficient redistribution outcomes, which does not contradict the mid term effect.

The long term effect is that Democracies are subject to the tyranny of the majority or the pareto curve via coordinated propaganda toward an extensive uneducated/politically-ineffectual population. The USA is no different, but is still very young.

> I think even a cursory analysis of the state would lead you conclude that governments don't efficiently allocate resources in any meaningful sens

A cursory analysis shows that US Govt entitlements are the largest part of the US Budget year over year, since Social Security was introduced (at least). What you mean by efficient is a sticking point, but the majority of the budget goes to supporting the people. That seems to fit.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud...

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-w...

[hi_im_miles]

> Over time, the choices that affect an underclass are more lenient, as the underclasses vote in their own interest. Short term, there can always be less efficient redistribution outcomes, which does not contradict the mid term effect.

This argument doesn't check out for me. There is no guarantee the underclass wins any of the votes they make. The leniency we see towards the "lower classes" is a result of actual struggle by the underclass themselves, in ways typically unrelated to electoralism. If they're not a majority then there's no guarantee "voting in their self-interest" results in any favorable outcomes for them.

In order for democracy to work in this manner, every interest must be evenly distributed, and every overlapping group of interests must also be evenly distributed. This just isn't demonstrated in reality.

> via coordinated propaganda toward an extensive uneducated/politically-ineffectual population

I greatly dislike this idea that propaganda is what makes people vote the way they do. A much simpler explanation is that people have overlapping and contradictory interests that change over time, and their vote reflects this interest. A xenophobic voter may recognize immigration as a net gain for "the economy", but still be willing to take that hit to not live among those of other cultures.

> A cursory analysis shows that US Govt entitlements are the largest part of the US Budget year over year, since Social Security was introduced (at least). What you mean by efficient is a sticking point, but the majority of the budget goes to supporting the people. That seems to fit.

Even if the government spent 100% of its budget "supporting people", this support can still be:

1. Tilted towards more influential voting blocs. 2. Highly discriminatory and exclusionary (thinking of blocs like undocumented immigrants here). 3. Ultimately a raw deal, because we're still supporting a parasitic capitalist class and only getting back cents on the dollar compared to what they make off of us.

The situation you're describing here is one in which the government breaks our legs, then hands us crutches as compensation (which conveniently happen to be manufactured by the corporation lucky enough to get the contract).