Government intervention is always a retardant of beneficial market mechanisms.

"-=1=-" I agree that the price mechanism is based on subjective and tacit information that amounts to millions of terabytes of information contained in the brains of every consumer and producer. This is why comprehensive state-planning typically results in a sort of market failure within itself - it isn't reflective of actual supply and demand. But this refers to only one form of government intrusion, being price controls, which are of the least conducive forms of intervention. "-=2=-" The Federal Reserve - quasi arm of executive branch - targets inflation at around 1-3%, which has little effects on any debts owed.[1] The more fundamental effect is made in creating additional available money within the economy, which initiates increased lending, investment, and production, all in turn for some minimal and stable rises in the CPI - a generous trade-off. Considering the actions taken by banks when money is removed from the economy, any small business entrepreneur is going to have a significantly lesser chance of obtaining the necessary start-up capital, for debtors are punished, and savers are rewarded. This doesn't include additional adverse economic effects such as declines in company profits, rises in unemployment, and stagnated growth - all caused by deflation.[2] Even worse is when a currency is pegged to a commodity such as gold, which results in relatively rapid deflation as the economy expands beyond the supply of gold.[3] Removing government intrusion in this instance would result in an inability to stabilize natural deflationary forces (economy exceeds money supply), which brings lending and aggregate demand to a halt, due to the reasons stated above. "-=3=-" 1. Voters generally have a philosophical understanding of where their representatives stand, which transfers into the economic realm. Conservatives stand for low taxes and free markets, while Liberals tend to support the opposite. The average voter may not understand international trade agreements, but they do have the overall gist of how they and others will be affected by their votes. Your link correctly expresses the economic illiteracy of most voters, which can easily be fixed by requiring high-school students to pass an economics course; a preferable solution to dismantling democratic rights. Very few states have these sort of requirements, which is the real problem - not democracy itself.[4] 2. Similarly, special interest minorities that determine various laws based on monetary "gifts", rather than majority standing, can be quelled by implementing campaign finance reforms. Once again, democracy itself isn't the problem. "-=4=-" 1. The rising medical prices over the last few decades is much more than a "snapshot". These market prices may not represent a market failure, but they're certainly are a justification for government intrusion. People require medical care to live decent and comfortable lives, which the markets are not able to account for due to high barriers of entry and the inelastic demand. Because of these market problems, every other country in the OECD has socialized healthcare, which has yielded increased quality, increased accessibility, and lower government and consumer costs.[5][6] The fact of the matter is that government intrusion can improve and expand healthcare more efficiently than the market under these circumstances. 2. Although some government intrusions have been detrimental, most have been helpful. Social Security, labor protection laws, roads, NHS, and many other programs have been very beneficial. As for this selective list, I share your POV... 1. I disagree with rent controls. 2. I agree that the pharmaceutical patent laws are ridiculous, which can be solved by campaign finance reforms. 3. Oil cartels can also be solved by campaign finance reforms. 4. I agree that the USWA had too much power, which led to the decline in US steel. 5. I also agree that the tariffs were harmful. "-=5=-" Tacit information within the economy is very complex, but this doesn't mean the government cannot do anything right. There are fundamental properties in the economy that cannot be solved by natural market forces, so it's best that the government steps up to these problems, be it deflation, healthcare inadequacy, or dismal working conditions. Overall, there are simply resources that are not efficiently allocated by markets alone. Sources: 1. http://www.federalreserve.gov... 2. http://www.investopedia.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://www.councilforeconed.org... 5. http://seekingalpha.com... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org...