In any kind of society, no matter whether centrally planned or not, there will be people who seek out and solve needs for others, with an expectation that they'll be compensated. Even in the communist USSR, people would have side-businesses, sometimes dealing in the black market. While "illegal", these businesses were able to thrive because someone was there to fulfill the needs of others.
One of the worst things to do is to create government programs "to increase the numbers of entrepreneurs". Why? Because while some entrepreneurs will benefit, those who benefit the most are the same characters who know how to work the government to their benefit. Example: the government has set-asides for "small and minority-owned businesses". I've seen large companies partner with some small businesses, set a minority person as a figurehead, use their own people to successfully pursue the government contract, and laugh all the way to the bank. Small business, minorities, and even the figurehead guy don't really benefit from the scheme, do they?
If you let people keep more of the money they make, rather than redistribute it in an attempt to build entrepreneurship, then those who make products or deliver services that are needed will benefit. Otherwise, it's just those who are best at playing the game.
One might be Intellectual Property reform. Another might be the introduction of computer science into the UK/US curricula. Another might be the liberalisation of immigration policy. Then there's superfast broadband infrastructure roll-outs. Maybe strengthening competition law in some online markets. Etc. Etc.
Couched in a different terms, I might say: I agree that the Government should get out of the way. But /how/ does the Government get out of the way?
I wanted to understand how to organise the traditional hierarchy of digital policy priorities.