The sham of democracy involves electing individuals purportedly to represent the ‘public will’. Government is by and large naively believed to be an extension of the public’s interests or their ‘will’ rather than an institution of numerous individuals each vying for their own conflicting personal interests.
Ask yourself why and how politicians are elected. It is assumed that an elected official will act upon moralistic incentives rather than personal economic incentives, on behalf of society. That is why only very seemingly kind and trusting individuals make it in politics. If they can convince enough people that they will be constrained by moralistic rather than economic incentives, they can go as far as becoming the president. But the thing is, politicians or presidents are those who in fact have the MOST to gain from personal financial incentives aka corruption and yet are trusted far more by progressives, than are private citizens or businessmen, who in fact have the least conflicting economic and moralistic incentives, and have the least to gain from corruption.
Now, economic incentives work great with private individuals constrained by the free market, and not just shamelessly using stolen tax payers’ money. For example, an oil company has an economic incentive to avoid environmental damage as much as possible, so as to avoid costly legal proceedings due to public outcry etc. A logging company has an economic incentive to efficiently reforest an area, or else their business will be run to the ground in under a decade. A big game hunting company has an economic incentive to preserve the habitat and population of local wild life. A third world businessman has an economic incentive to travel days and nights across the desert in order to meet the demand for grain by starving people during a famine.
But alas, as is often the case, progressives are more concerned by motives and incentives than the material consequences themselves. So what if hunters are the most effective environmentalists? They save wildlife for the wrong reasons, and therefore they are simply to be disregarded. So what if a third world businessman saves dozens of times more lives than a foreign aid worker? He saved those lives for the wrong reason, and therefore should be simply disregarded.