Government Should Provide Infrastructure?

That government is recommended to merely provide national defence and enable private organizations and individuals to supply infrastructure has been under discussion among concerning people. This prompt both advantages and disadvantages, which is clarified by subsequent interprets.
Admittedly, this causes military power enhancement and competitive increase. To commence with, by virtue of responsibility for merely defense, government possibly invest money to buy the most state-of–the-art weapons. Not only do they focus on training soldiers but they also possibly research strategies. Equally important, both private groups and individuals participate in providing basic systems and services, which creates competitive environment in this sector. There are no monopoly and companies are equal, the result of which is only by producing better products with lower prices, do they possibly stand stably in cutthroat conditions. Apparently, various social components take advantages in this situation.
Notwithstanding, not only having benefits, does this probably trigger disadvantages which are losing control over economy and imbalance development. First and foremost, being no longer involved in regulating economic activities, government by no means issues policies to orient them. Additionally, investors attach special importance in making profit, owing to which a small segment of population who are rich obtains the most investment. They do not bother to concern about the poor, public interests and social welfare which ensure poverty line of residents. Thus, a country possibly suffers various negative effects in this case.
In my perspective, I advocate government to provide not only defense capability but also infrastructure on account of losing control and unequal progression of economy. This clarify why almost every government rarely hands over authority of providing basic systems and services as the United Kingdom and