I'm not one to support government intervention in much at all, but if I was, what springs to mind as a musician is 'limitation breeds innovation' or 'creativity' if you don't want to rhyme.
With that in mind, if governments restricted enterprises, not by banning certain practices, but by makinig the practices undesirable to human wellbeing increasingly frustrating to accomplish and harder to profit from, some businesses may die out as is natural, but it will be a breeding ground for the minds of innovative folk who can see a way through where profit can come from the wellbeing of the populace - because that is all the government would allow.
The government, to me, is supposed to function as a kind of guard against corporate interests. It's supposed to be the thing that spends money, not makes money. I dunno. I'm no economist - it's too boring.
If I were to march for anything it's to stop this kind of sludge-like merging of corporate and political interests. Separate them like church and state, I reckon.
In the UK, I do at least appreciate that the prime minister's salary is less than that of some store managers in the USA (about $100k), and that they have to go to the queen/king every week to explain & justify their actions to a symbolic higher power, as well as do a weekly political battle with their opponents, face to face, being pummeled with questions and criticism.
Not as effective as I'd hoped, but in principle these three features are fantastically humbling and exact reminders of what the goverment is, a servent for the people, not a boss. serve us