If b is really more feasible than a... isnt that a wake up call, that just maybe you are focusing on the wrong problem?

If we want to talk about greater good here and all.

The govt spends so much of our energy on wrong things, the greater good could quickly be served by ending those things that are obviously wrong first. This would then make it easier to objectively identify areas where govt intervention was actually needed. Just as in this sugar case. We might well find, that by ending sugar subsidies and returning to real market pricing of sugar that over consumption drastically decreases , killing multiple birds with one stone. As opposed to spending yet more of societies resources on policing and regulating sugar, which without addressing the core political and philosophical issues of the subsidies might even result in yet greater subsidies as the sugar makers complain it is even harder to turn a profit.

This line of thinking is also a large part of the reason that I favor more local govt intervention when intervention is called for. Having different areas under the same societal umbrella try different methods presents much more viable control groups. It is much easier to see if a policy is effective and does not create drastic unintended consequences when you are comparing say Ohio and PA - as opposed to comparing a national policy to pure theorycraft or even the rest of the world.

Not is not to say perfection is achieved, but the picture becomes clearer.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)