"You’re assigning altruism to government and their reasons for creating all the “red tape”. This is not always the case, and in many instances it causes more harm than good. Most of this “red tape” isn’t just regulation of behavior but regulation of the market itself in order to gain control.
I don’t understand this attitude of assigning corruption to corporations but ignore the mountain of evidence of corruption in government while trying to give them more power over multiple aspects of the economy/country. It’s asinine to do this when if a corporation messes up big, yes it can cause problems within a certain area with a few possible tendrils of negative effects, but smart decisions by other industries can protect the overall economy. If government messes up big then it has the potential to drag everyone down at once."
I'm not assuming altruism at all, I'm assuming that those in power wish to maintain that power - and in the case of the government that power should be maintained by winning elections. This *should* (but often isn't) what democracy is supposed to be about; but unfortunately *corporate* influence means that fairly often the selfish desires of a government official isn't hinged on making good on promises to the people, but by serving the interests of those who funded their campaign.
Having said that - much of what is just being dismissed as "red tape" are regulations put there AFTER something awful happened. In Ontario for example there was a Listeria outbreak that resulted in 22 people dying, and this outbreak can be directly connected to trying to save money by handing over inspection issues to the corporations running the meat plants.
There's also "red tape" regulating what can and can't be dumped and where it can/can't be dumped. Red tape regarding everything from safety regulations to who can and can't be hired -- most of which was put there to prevent some disaster that the corporations *don't* have a vested interest in preventing.
What I'm suggesting isn't to believe that the government is some benevolent uncorruptable force, that's absurd. What I'm saying is that it's imperative that we remove the influence of something that by its very definition is self serving. Corporations are far too powerful in North America and have far too much say in government policy. It's so bad now that it's hard to even speak of government without acknowledging how much of it is already purchased.
In countries where these influences are curtailed and there are regulations on what can/can't be donated to any given political candidate, they're more likely to have policies which work better for the people. We accept that the government should cover a certain amount of public spending - we live in a society that has infrastructure, education, law enforcement, disaster services, and much else besides. Without those very valuable aspects society would suffer enormously - and again, the countries that take better care of those are healthier, happier, and the citizens live longer while continually being at the top of "best places to live".
I'm not denying governments can be corrupt, but far and away the biggest corrupting factor in the United States isn't that they're government - it's that they're bought and paid for by corporations or those serving corporate interests.
Things like product labeling, laws against false advertising, employee rights, consumer rights, fraud, environmental issues etc are all causes that required advocacy by governments to pass. Regulations and laws created to avoid tragic consequences that in many cases occured previously, stimulating the need and political will to address it.
Do you know who oppose those regulations? Corporations for whom this would mean a small reduction in their profitability.
Now you regulalarly try to equate corporations with people in the sense that they're mostly good with just a few bad apples. But besides the structural issues mentioned above (related to the fact that their primary function is profit - whereas a person's primary function is also connected to things like empathy etc.) -- there is the fact that there was little to no protest when they were given a huge tax cut (a cut they used to primarily hoard more wealth), and the fact that when they do protest it is against the above mentioned regulations.
So we have entities that want to pay as little as possible towards the upkeep of the society they directly benefit from, they fight and campaign against regulations that are (more often than not) put in place for public safety, and if they have been unambiguously caught doing something awful or catastrophic - they have the most powerful lawyers in the world to help them either escape liability or minimize it as much as humanly possible.
Do those actions seem like the actions of an inherently moral entity? Cripes - look at the medical insurance corporations - there is financial insentive to *deny* people care/coverage. There have been court cases where in each link in the chain the most important thing to protect was the companies bottom line and not the customer's health.