Oh boy...,
I expect the nation-state system to last for a few more generations.
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Yes and what on earth does that have to do with the topic: "Both proclaim, no doubt sincerely, that they wish to promote the well-being of the 'general public,' that they know what is in the 'public interest' and how to attain it better than the ordinary person. Both, therefore, profess a paternalistic philosophy. And both end up, if they attain power, promoting the interests of their own class in the name of the 'general welfare.'"?
The nation-state exists. OK.
The OP assumes the existence of the modern state, read it, as the welfare state, it gives it's beginnings as conservative stealing liberal thunder. It then explains why it fails, because, as I've argued, central planners cannot know the values and wants of the people, but only serve that of the rulers. In another video, Freidman explains what the proper or successful role of the state would be, to pretect the freedom to pursue happiness, and that to pursue the welfare state, where some are entitle and other must pay, is unethical and can only fail. It's not sustainable.