> nor do I believe government is the only, or best way for society to provide " a healthy, educated workforce, currency, roads etc. "
To me the obvious flaw in this type of society has always been that it provides no guard against the concentration of wealth and by proxy power. It works with a theoretical amorphous blob of people who have no ties to location and an infinite supply of land and resources. In reality the populace would quickly become slaves, with the only interest of the organisations in control of their food, shelter, and transport being the extraction of ever larger sums of money.
I'm honestly not sure how someone could look at the state of the corporate world and say "I wish these guys controlled more of my life". We've already seen this type of rent seeking become prominent in digital media and it hasn't improved anything for the populace.
The profit motive is functional enough for things that aren't necessities but we know exactly what happens when a profit driven entity has a near or local monopoly on something necessary for life. Look to the early railroads and company towns as an example.
> In fact history shows that government is generally pretty poor at providing any of those things
That's a bold claim without any proof. I'd argue the opposite. The vast majority of the population is now both numerate and literate and most countries have a usable road and rail network that's accessible to everyone. Beyond that government programs have been responsible for the eradication of multiple diseases.
