Well... maybe the government shouldn't have so much power that when influenced it can cause so much harm.
I would argue that with that amount of power, government necessarily has the ability to cause harm to the economy/society. Otherwise it fails as a government.
Stripping the government of power will do nothing. We must fix it.
Only when the people banding together claim a monopoly on the use of force to achieve their goals. This is exactly the distinction that Bastiat describes.
On a more "scholar" note there is the notion that a leviathan is needed.
Moreover, I think private companies and individuals can be as violent, or more, than any government that claim monopoly on its use.
Be it physically or symbolically.
Individuals who band together to accomplish things can also be called a corporation.
Do you genuinely fail to see the difference or is that comment just for the sake of that (weak) argument ?
Well... maybe the problem is that the economy interferes extensively in the government.
> Building a society is the responsibility of each individual who values it. Using government force in pursuit of that goal leads only to the co-option and disenfranchisement Simon complains about.
Individuals have to band together to accomplish things because at some point one individual isn't enough. In democratic society such a banding, supported by the people and for the people, is called a government.