Cost-benefit analysis (CBA), as a distinctive evaluating tool for public investment projects laying in the portfolio of the governmental authorities, strives to replicate the market in establishing economic standards for the measurement of their success, while the government’s actions are in explicit contradiction with the market test. In this paper, CBA is being scrutinized from two angles: the first, coming from that of the critics who don’t approve the very fundamentals this method is based on (i.e., with the Austrian School being at odds with the mainstream welfare and public economics theory); and the second, from the point of view of those considering government’s intervention to be still beneficial for society, this being defended by the use of other tools than CBA (which, nevertheless, might be as flawed, so long as they are rather based on fiction or coercive actions). The purpose of this paper is to recollect the reasons for which economists should more carefully doubt certain justifications in support of delivering public goods or policies, no matter how important those services and institutions that the state authority pretends it and it only can provide seem to be. CBA and its fellow tools are to be treated with skepticism for when substituted for the market test, the only meaningful way to spur utility and manage scarcity interpersonally, their logic is so epistemologically unconvincing.