Had he said "circumstances" rather then "predicaments" I think he'd have been spot on. I think the reason most of my colleagues in academe are leftists is not leftist indoctrination by previous generations of academics, but the fact that if one is an academician one has found something one loves to do so much one would do it without regard to financial reward (be it physics, mathematics, literary criticism, one of the arts, or whatever), so the idea of a fiduciary taking care of all one's material needs is appealing. The foolishness is the belief that that circumstance would be universally beneficial or even universally feasible--neither is the case.
Of course, I would also take to task those who think that the circumstances which are beneficial to commerce are universally beneficial (though they are certainly universally feasible as the rise of business-modeled 'megachurches' and the march of the bean-counters through the institutions shows). Kirk's notion that particularity is valuable applies not only to place and culture but to domains of human activity: universities and churches should no more be run like commercial businesses than commercial businesses should be run like social service agencies.
If you were to list all the many functions of local, state and federal governments, and then note which ones are sometimes or usually also performed by private for-profit companies, I'd suggest there is only a small core of activities which only governments ever perform.
These would include those items specified in the US Constitution as appropriate and necessary for the government. Beyond that would be very few functions.
So, we have to ask: if a private company CAN do the work, then why SHOULD it be reserved to a government agency?
Conservatives, of course, take to task those who insist that circumstances which are beneficial to the government are universally beneficial. ;-)