I've never understood why Americans trust companies more than the government. A companies only purpose is to take as much money from you as it possibly can. The government actually needs to improve your life if they want to be re-elected.
Because of similar thinking running in the opposite direction and taking into account some nuances.
In theory, any large group entity with bureaucracy is subject to cronyism/nepotism, bloat, laziness, inefficiency, etc. This is a 'human condition' problem, not a government or private enterprise problem.
Now the question is, what forces counter-act that?
With the private sector, conservatives tend to believe free market competition for growth, stability and profit to some extent create selective pressures to counter act those forces. So, the boss may appoint his son to a managerial position, but the son had better be competent to do the job. And the sense that 'if you don't generate share holder value, your competitor will' drives innovation and 'trimming the fat.'
So it's not faith in the altruistic beneficence of private corporations; it's belief their self-interest lies in efficiently delivering quality product. Yes, there are exceptions that prove the rule, but that's the point.
You take the position that government is beholden to the electorate, and must perform likewise. That...is often not our experience. First off, a lot of the employees and positions in government offices are not elected positions; if you don't like slow service at a Dept. of Motor Vehicles, you can't just vote them out next election. You don't even know what 'party' a given employee favors. And a high level elected official won't know who they are, either. And much of the government exists outside our scope of awareness. Example: USAID. Trump's opposition to this put it in the headlines, but before his 2nd term I don't think most of us Americans knew what it was. Yeah, we had this vague, nebulous notion there was 'foreign aid,' and a meme on Facebook hoping we didn't contact life in outer space because our government would start sending them money, but most of us didn't know specifics.
So, market forces in the private sector, coupled with 'voting with your feet' for the best products (that is why you're here, not on a Windows forum, right?), are seen by conservatives as inherent and thus not requiring a lot of awareness or active action on our part. Government, on the other hand, is largely non-elected and/or out of sight/out of mind and can be inefficient and often lacks competition. There's only one federal IRS. Only one FBI. Etc. Inefficiency, ineffectiveness and waste don't necessarily doom a government organization.
Does that mean the private sector is the perfect answer to all needs? Oh, great day in the morning, of course not! There are situations where a competitive market won't be established in a cost-effective manner (e.g.: public schools in poor neighborhoods), where we have to maintain an organization (e.g.: the military) and maintain services that don't return a direct profit (e.g.: the public highway system, unless you want to charge more fees or make a lot more toll roads). And there's credible concern over some private sector operations - I hear some dislike private corporations managing prisons.
But I think you can see the answer to your question. To take your own assertion and counter it, the private sector needs to earn your money to get it, but the government does not...they can just take it.
