As a counter example, a government (Ukraine) is defending against the Russian invasion and is looking more and more like it might win that fight. Would they be better off without a government?

Then again, the British East India Company committed plenty of atrocities as a corporation, so if we're going to oversimplify to government bad, it seems corporations bad too. Don't get me started on religious either!

In the spirit of fairness I have to note the untold deaths caused by non-socialist countries in Cambodia, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, pretty much every country in South America...

> It was government acknowledging its own limitations

No it was not. It was deliberately trying to make government sound as useless as possible, so that its useful programs can be dismantled.

You are ignoring all good things that came out of governments. That is also deliberate choice. If Ukraine government fell, they would be Russians now. Last century, we have see a lot of good coming out of governments - starting with new deal, human rights, historically unprecedented period of peace in Europe and prosperity. Science, education, healthcare all work better when governments work well.

And now we've overcorrected and have people dying from a lack of government care.

It was indeed meant to sound "cool and fun". It was supposed to be a memorable slogan. That's why Reagan used it. Then people made it into a battle cry for letting the hyper-wealthy dismantle regulations that were often written in blood, or for explaining why we need to let people go into bankruptcy from medical bills.

Having some centralized/public ownership of some enterprises doesn't necessarily mean that the government is going to purge people or starve tens of millions.