>>83528
In terms of economics, it is because of the inherent meritocratic and self-regulatory qualities of the free market. Anyone can own a business, all they have to do is say they are selling something that they own and boom, it's some arbitrary form of business. When someone becomes a stereotypical business owner, with property and a production capacity, they hedge their bets that they will outcompete the other business owners in their chosen market sector at least enough that they will turn a profit valuable enough to them that they are willing to suspend their immediate profit for long-term gain. If they fail in their competition, then they improperly forecasted in some degree, be it in consideration of their own productive potential or in consideration for the production potential of their competitors as well as a plethora of things which must be considered.
When it comes to States, however, things get a bit fucky. I am going to assume that we are talking about actual States, not the pseudo-states of anarcho-capitalism that manifest through the voluntary contributions to social governance. These organizations are de facto monopolies which are propped up through the utilization of aggression in order to stomp down their competition. They express through force their intention to operate without competition in a particular area, and as such the calculations they make are drastically different from the ones a businessman makes. Rather than having to account for competition and having to forecast market conditions, cultural conditions, production conditions, resource conditons, etc. in order to be effective in the establishment of an organization, a State merely has to forecast whether or not they can "get away with it". Seeing as they are operating through force, they must have a perceived degree of consent by their subjects. Thus they must forecast whether or not what they plan on doing is going to shed or accumulate perceived consent. They are in the "business" of increasing the accumulation of consent and reducing the shedding of it. They do this in order to increase their total power, and thus their ability to succeed personally in an economic manner (through the trade of power via some fashion). What does this mean? If a singular person is ruling a State and they are self-interested (hint: everyone is self-interested, being otherwise is impossible as you consider your own subjective values when making the evaluations regarding immediate and future actions) then they will enact policies which restrict the potential for others to compete and expands the reach of their economic potential. This is why States always expand and take over more and more industry through regulations and outright seizure in the case of Last-Stage-Statism/Socialism. This means that a singular person ruling over a State will lead to poor market performance across the board in the long run as this person seeks to expand their take. This is also why States play demographic games- in order to expand their control over the market by minimizing the effectiveness of the free market through "integration" of foreign elements which cannot actually contribute to said market and only act as leech agents.
Now, it is possible to have a benevolent dictator with no personal economic interests, but this is extremely rare and you cannot assume that this will be the case all the time. The State infrastructure can *only* be operated by the benevolent in ways which will not hurt the subjects of said State. This brings into question the whole point of the State, and whether or not it is even necessary anymore. I don't believe so, for ethical and economical reasons. I think every service the State "provides" can be better handled by entrepreneurs on the market at a lower cost and a higher quality than the State could ever manage. I think competition on things like law and provision of defense is the only way we can be certain that we will not only be safe, but be free to manifest our lives in the righteous ways we choose.