Milton Friedman often appears in public debate as a label. For some, he is the symbol of neoliberalism. For others, an uncomfortable reference. But this way of reading him is not very useful. It does not help us understand the problems we have today. Friedman was not writing against the State. He was writing about government errors. His starting point was simple, but uncomfortable: public policies can not only fail, but they tend to do so systematically. Not out of bad faith, but because of how they are designed.Governments decide with incomplete information, respond to short-term incentives, and operate in environments where the effects of decisions are not always predictable. This is not ideology. It is a reality.And this is not theory. We see it every day. In the Balearic Islands, for example, in housing, measures designed to facilitate access can end up reducing supply or delaying new projects. In other areas, direct aid to pay for a service can end up increasing demand and causing prices to rise.The problem does not disappear. It changes form. And this is not an exception. It is a pattern. Policies that accumulate without review, regulations that overlap, decisions made in haste that are later left in place. The system becomes increasingly complex, more difficult to understand, and more difficult to manage.The problem is not will. The problem is design. These errors are not random. They respond to a logic. Public decisions are often made under pressure, with incomplete information, and with incentives that reward the short term. A measure may work today, but generate effects that will only be seen later. And when these effects appear, they are often responded to with new measures that do not solve the root of the problem, but rather add more complexity.It is not an isolated error. It is a dynamic that repeats itself.This dynamic has a clear consequence: each new policy not only tries to solve a problem, but also changes the system in which it is applied. And often it does so without being fully predictable. When the rules change constantly, families, businesses, and investors stop reacting only to the norm and begin to adapt to uncertainty. This translates into delayed decisions, less activity, and more caution than would be desirable.The system becomes more complex, but also less predictable. And this is exactly the opposite of what was sought.Friedman insisted that policies based on clear and stable rules tend to generate fewer errors than constant and discretionary interventions. Not because the market is perfect, but because government is not perfect either.This is the central point. It is not about choosing between State or market. It is about understanding that both can fail. And that government failures are not exceptional nor do they depend on a specific ideology. They occur under governments of all colors. Sometimes they fail due to inaction and other times, due to erroneous action. But, often, the underlying problem is the same: a mistaken diagnosis.In the Balearic Islands, this is seen especially well. Often the intention is to correct a problem, but what happens is that it transforms or is displaced. And the system, instead of simplifying, becomes more complicated.The question is not whether the government should act. It is whether it does so with a good diagnosis and with rules that prevent repeating the same mistakes.Because, if not, the problem is not Friedman. The problem is that we have not yet fully accepted that governments also fail.