So then we should disallow government from regulating the market? There is a conflict of interest in your conjecture.
I and many other people have a laundry list of skills that I could offer to others only if I fill out piles of paper work.
If little jimmy wants to wash 1 car he needs to register a business and get the business bank account?
If big Joe has 100 car washes and he is earning a stable income without expanding or innovating to much government could make a bid on it and offer him a job.
If say the US gov wants to force-purchase the google search engine it should pay handsomely for it. Say 1800 billion. Alphabet would do just fine bidding on the advertisement slots and selling them to their customers. (Such a large purchase should probably involve a referendum)
It is our government. If we want it to sell beer in town hall it should be up to us. If you and many others are against it it obviously shouldn't happen.
I would also..
- allow government to compete on the free market.
- allow government to force-purchase static businesses that are profitable but not innovating.
- require government to monitor such port folio and privatize where innovation is failing. Privatization of this kind should not be rushed and aim to get good value for the assets.
- print money against the new government assets minus earnings from privatization