That certainly depends on the task and what 'better job' means.

For example, private enterprise can certainly make a lot of money providing health care but I'd be very disappointed if my country switched to privatized health care. I personally believe that the Government can do, and does, a better job than "the people" in providing me with health care.

The Libertarian perspective on healthcare is that it is the most regulated portion of the economy, so if other areas of the economy become as regulated, their prices would go up. We see this in Bay Area housing markets.

> Step out of the box, and imagine for a second

Well, what you said is entirely true...from the perspective of someone using their imagination to form their world view.

In the world I can observe, business is neither inherently good or inherently evil. It tends to take on the morality or immorality of its owners and directors. I'll leave it to the reader to decide what kind of people tend to rise into those positions, and thus what kind of morality their businesses assume. Business is motivated by all kinds of incentives not necessarily related to "lower prices". Left unchecked, without guidance from the general public, those incentives will always converge on "profiting and growing" to the exclusion of everything else. I don't think this view requires imagination, but happy to be shown otherwise.

> Business is motivated by all kinds of incentives not necessarily related to "lower prices"

I would posit that business is virtually never motivated by "lower prices" and always motivated by "profiting and growing". Not that profiting and growing is inherently evil, but I think the idea that businesses strive to lower prices for consumers is truly fantasy.

At its best, business provides a utility for exchange thats worth more than the sum of its parts, by specializing and scaling. At its worst, business grows large and powerful enough to control all access to that utility, and becomes an abuser of that power.

This is the same for government. The worst is when both work purely for power together - the pharmaceutical industry being one, the military industrial complex being another. I frequently see people who advocate for smaller government be fine with absolutely abusive industry, thinking that with less government (IE regulation) the industry will fix itself. I don't think this is the case, since you're not really addressing the power disparity. The same can be true with industry - making industry smaller (anti-trust) won't fix the government.

I don’t see that as a one or the other decision. I think of it as a continuum, where decision making on either side is grounded in knowledge of history. Should the government decide if Nike or Addidas make better shoes? No, let the market do that. But if one company makes cheaper and better shoes by offloading toxic waste into aquifers that feed large cities, the market is not good at weeding that out until the damage has been done. Enter regulations created in and of the public interest.

> profit is a reward for providing something people want for a lower price

How do monopolies work with this? If I am a car manufacturer and I buy up all the steel and steel mills, and then jack my prices up, I get more profit, and also am protected from competitors. If there are no power or resource disparities, I could see this working, but at the very least government is (to a much larger extent than the private sector) accountable to people.

> It seems silly that a small team of government hired employees would know better than tens of thousands of Google, Amazon or Facebook experts.

Those tens of thousands of Google/Amazon/Facebook experts are not going to provide the government with objective recommendations, they're going to provide the government with recommendations that favor them. The idea of the government office of experts is to help make decisions that are objectively in the best interests of the people, not the corporations that are going to be affected by those decisions.

I work for a government office that, fortunately, is not hated by Republicans because it supports the military. But in this office our job is to ensure that private companies are giving the government good value and not feeding us a bunch of crap. I see the kind of shoddy workmanship they try to sneak past us all the time.

Is the libertarian perspective really that the government should just de facto trust all private companies and not try to provide oversight?

> Do you personally believe the Government can do a better job than the people?

The government is made up of people too.

> Those tens of thousands of Google/Amazon/Facebook experts are not going to provide the government with objective recommendations, they're going to provide the government with recommendations that favor them.

Do you have a factual basis for this claim? To me it seems like a form of projection that is common among right-of-center people. It's no wonder they want smaller government.

I'm not right of center and I don't want smaller government. The fact that employees of corporations will provide the government with recommendations that are favorable for those corporations is exactly why I think the government needs a technology office to advocate on its own behalf.

As someone that works for a living for a YC company. I want my company to advocate for itself

Precisely. And the government should have a group with the proper qualifications to judge the merits of the advocacy of these other companies and advocate on the government's and people's behalf.

When considering additional regulations, the weight of biased political workers should have zero weight. Advocacy is most often a defensive action against business killing overreach.

Tell me which ones would be favored for hiring and retention - experts which provide what they want presented or ones which present inconvenient facts?

I want to note you asked for an honest answer of my perspective and this was down-voted.

downvoted again. lol. This place is not tolerant of non-left wing view points.

Sorry to hear that. I posted a somewhat disagreeing response to you, but felt your response was reasonable and respectfully put. I have never downvoted anyone due to simple disagreement--that is what replies are for. Downvoting, imho, is for content with an improper tone or context--abusive, off topic, or what have you.