So long as by "what is better" we mean higher profits, that's a given! It's a reason we had sweat shops and child labor, which in turn is a reason for government regulation. The former is evil and the latter has a natural tendency to be overdone and/or corrupted by special business interests. Human nature makes a necessity out of good regulation, but good regulation requires good government. Both good regulation and good government are critically dependent on strong and universal public education. Living standards track closely the quality and universality of public education.
I do agree that corporations will do evil things, and the government clearly is easy to corrupt. But what I never want to do is give power to the government to make decisions for me. Its never a decision that the majority will agree with, but more so decisions that that their top contributors will favor.
Corporations are evil, and pursuit of profit isn't the reason. The problem comes back to money, how money comes into the world, who gets to decide this, and how this money is divided. Call it a shameful plug for bitcoin, but if we separate money from the state, all of a sudden the incentives for everything change. I think that less regulation will be necessary if you don't magically give some people shit loads of extra money for nothing and incentivize bad behavior through all sorts of crazy laws, kickbacks, rebates, etc.
Lastly, people in the world need to become more self sufficient. The government on purpose wants to get everyone hooked on government subsidies, and then in exchange for this support, they force your total surrender to them. Maybe the government breaks up a sweatshop, which sounds great, but in order to perform that task, they need to collect tax dollars to fund that agency. We clearly know the funding will mostly be wasted, and I'm sure that sweatshop probably got off the ground through some sort of corruption of government officials to begin with anyway. So is regulation helping or hurting?
The fight against drugs has been an epic failure. The government incentivizes illegal drug production which is highly financially lucrative simply because it outlaws drugs. Why on earth am I spending so much money to prevent someone from putting poison into their own body? The government actually creates the incentive for the drug trade because of how much money there is to be made in the production and distribution of drugs.
Another example is helping single mothers. Sure, it sounds great to say all those poor innocent, fatherless children need to be saved, but how did this situation arise? How are mothers making bad decisions about who they get pregnant from? Should all of society be responsible for a woman's bad decisions? Its like forgiving student loans. Why are tax payers who never went to school to get an education responsible for paying off the loans of someone who did go to school?
The single mother epidemic is a result of failed feminism, and who is responsible for that? The more we "save the children" through a shit ton of government regulation, the more we encourage women to make bad choices. And it of course requires big governments to run the courts, collect the checks, distribute the money, and where money comes up short, raise the kid, on the dime of the tax payer. Women used to be fearful of getting pregnant from losers because they knew how difficult life would be, and so they were very selective about who they were intimate with. But now its almost cool to get knocked up and be a single mother, and how did this opinion get popularized? Does it have anything to do with the "you don't need no man" movement?
Call me cruel, but tasking the government with solving people's problems just leads to more problems.
