their primary obligation should be to act in the long-term best interests of the citizens of the country
The problem is no one can agree on what is "best interests" which is why I defer to a more libertarian approach. I don't think my opinion of 'what is best' should be legislated onto anyone else.
Yes, parenting is hideously complicated and my wife and I have different opinions on how to do it. Therefore let's defer to a libertarian approach and let children wander free in the world, and free of our biased conceptions of what parenting should be.
There is a world of difference between an honest attempt at something complex, and no attempt at all, or an attempt at doing the opposite. If people were not morons, we would elect people making honest attempts to do good, and perhaps change our minds occasionally. That's not the same as electing people who are obviously corrupt, or totally doing away with government: Looking the other way while letting bad people run free to rape your neighbours seems lazy and unwise, whether you do the raping or not, at some point you'll get what's going around.
This is a ridiculous analogy. Letting adults have the most say over their own lives is completely different than raising a child.
we would elect people making honest attempts to do good
Again, the problem is no one agrees on who is 'doing good'.
That's not the same as electing people who are obviously corrupt
Most of the time that is all that is running! lol
Come on with the rape stuff. I didn't say I was an anarchist. I want very limited government. "That government is best which governs least."
Ideally their primary obligation should be to act in the long-term best interests of the citizens of the country. Environmental protection should be an important part of that.
Of course most modern governments seem to be composed of hollow men who talk nonsense while helping powerful corporations increase their profits by shitting on everything.