I don't understand your disconnect between GOVERNMENT regulating and subsidizing in favor of those who pay to play. If a politician is taking tons of money to give concessions to an industry that the politician can NOT grant them, why would they give them the money?
For what purpose? That's the whole point. Govt. has no role in dictating the market except for exactly what we see now; corporatism. They may better define laws in order to protect our rights and our private property. Once they start pickign who gets what based on the money they provide, the game is rigged.
Finally, something that makes sense. The game IS rigged, hence my call for public financing. They don't give money to just one politician, but to many on both sides of the aisle. That's why so many say there's no difference between the parties, they've both been co-opted by the way we finance elections.
Yeah, and? So, we make a new public campaign finance law. One that no politician will ever touch and then they take bribes in the backdoor and nothing changes. Yay.
That is why you take away the politicians ability to intervene in the market altogether and leave them with their original task. The only reason this doesn't seem to make sense to you is because I don't think you really understand how this works and why your suggestion wont change anything.
We can start by repealing the nightmare of nonsense jammed under interstate commerce.
