The interface is where the problems arise, because of the monetisation of political representation. Government ends up as a superuser — to be targeted for heavy marketing pressures and inducements. I suppose that this use of ‘soft power’ is less culturally/socially harmful than the use of threats/violence to distort market access, as occurs in less developed countries. It seems that the (downside of the?)search for profits is that it seems to necessitate the use varieties of coercion and here government has ended up as a conduit instead of a buffer for these forces.
You would maybe say “get rid of the function of political representation (regulation)and that’s the end of lobbying and vested interests right there”-but where does that leave the people who have no choice but to buy a product- negotiating individually at gun/syringe-point?
Government’s job should be to peacefully smooth out the detrimental effects of extreme swings of the free market in local time and space by ensuring access to necessities (like adrenaline for anaphylactic reactions). In this case, guaranteeing the existence of an alternative supplier. This should prevent captive consumer situation and bounty pricing and preventable deaths.
Ideally the free market roams totally free in what could be considered discretionary (want but don’t need) markets where you buy if the price is right-not because you have to- and conversely is quarantined from the regulated (necessities or natural monopolies) side .
In my view politicians should not be products or consumables either for monopoly hungry business or for voters.
So either people need to recalibrate the criteria of what ‘their representatives’ are for and choose accordingly, or they need to be educated in awareness of what they are currently being (mis)sold as ‘government’ -middlemen and gatekeepers to the nation’s wallets, as it stands- and then create a version of it that actually does the job.