This is probably correct.

Though, I think my reasoning works even *if* the state actors' objectives were aligned with social value.  (State actors are more likely to go beyond MB=MC, to MB < MC)

SimpleStacker

I'm not Public Choice expert but I think they'd frame your argument slightly differently.

Government actors, lacking profit and loss feedback, do not perceive value in the same way as market entrepreneurs. So, it's not that they'd be better at choosing socially valuable projects under hard money constraints.

I see the benefits coming from these two mechanisms:

bitcoin_beginners

BooksAndArticles

Politics_And_Law

Animal_World

Can a bitcoin standard improve animal welfare? An analysis

I'm not Public Choice expert but I think they'd frame your argument slightly differently.

Government actors, lacking profit and loss feedback, do not perceive value in the same way as market entrepreneurs. So, it's not that they'd be better at choosing socially valuable projects under hard money constraints.

I see the benefits coming from these two mechanisms:
1. Most of these unethical research projects are peripheral to the goals of state actors, so they'll prioritize other (probably also unethical) stuff that matters more to them.
2. With near certainty, state activities generate economic losses. Therefor, fewer state activities = reduced losses.