Except how do you then compete when places like China have the state backing everything, which is basically like the world biggest monopoly?

Is there any country that doesn't have heavy subsidies/intervention in what it considers strategically important industries?

For example, the US basically has helicopters dumping cash into the agriculture industry nonstop, the CHIPS and Science Act is dumping 280 billion into semiconductors, and the petroleum industry gets around 20 billion a year.

It's not a matter of one country cheating while the others play fair, it's more like everyone cheating and some being more able to get away with it than others (RIP, Bombardier, for example).

Yeah, industrial policy historically has mostly created bad companies, which is why it fell out of favor for a while.

Even China is not foolproof at it; look at how troubled their airliner program has been.

In theory the new ideas that come from competition outweigh the efficiency/brute force of state-backed monopolies. But this depends on them not simply copying the ideas as they come.

Many things aren’t about new ideas. If you heavily subsidize raw materials, or even finished products like solar, you can own an industry. They’ve been successful at it for solar, and now own enough of the inputs that it would be difficult to not include China. They’ve generally done the same with manufacturing (including a ton of infrastructure) such that the rest of the world is now uncompetitive… especially at their scale.

The US is more productive on a per capita basis than China. We are competing just fine.

Like by a whole number factor.

Regulation is the difference between libertarianism and anarchy. People always claim to want unregulated freedom, speech is the most common example, then someone starts defaming, harassing, threatening, and sharing child porn and suddenly we get into a no true Scotsman debate about what freedom actually means. You should therefore be skeptical of anyone saying they want something completely unregulated. They are likely either lying to you or too blinded by their own biases to even understand what they are saying because almost no one wants actual anarchy.

Anarchy being the better version, with the anarchist members having to agree to such terms whereas the libertarians get to force their terms onto others by calling it property rights?

i view the need for regulations as through the lens of the seven deadly sins.

Until we can rest assured that 100% of you will treat me better than I deserve, we will have to be on the watch for pride, greed, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth.

That is pretty much the world that the original Star Trek was promising--an evolved human--but we are very far away from that now.

We could also look at it through the lens of Bertrand Russell's four unquenchable desires (acquisitiveness, rivalry, pride, power).

Either way, flawed humanity needs regulations backed by overwhelming power to force us to treat each other right.