Government intervention is always a retardant of beneficial market mechanisms.

"-=1=-" I agree that the market mechanism is very complex, which is why over-expansive government price controls can have adverse effects on the economy. However, the market itself is limited by its own factors, such as barriers to entry, imperfect information, demand elasticity, and externalities, which create sub-optimal results all on its own. Obviously market equilibrium will be met at some ridiculously high or low price, but that isn't serving anybody any good. This is why nearly every industrialized country has adopted socialized healthcare, for the prices are naturally too high in an unfettered market, which can lead to unnecessary sickness and death.[1] "-=2=-" 1. I did respond to your argument directly, albeit very briefly. You stated: "In fact, it manipulates and arbitrarily alters prices, through inflation, in order to raise revenue." This is false, and I gave the real reason why governments target inflation at around 1-3%. I also provided an argument for why government intrusion is beneficial by citing the role of central banks. 2. The Federal Reserve's record is hardly atrocious when compared to the history of decentralized banking in the US. From 1797 until the inception of the Fed, the US suffered 28 recessions, many of which were depressions combined with uncontrollable deflationary spirals that lasted decades.[2] 3. Scotland's banking system was reliant on the Bank of England for liquidity, had just as many failures as English banking, enforced interest rate ceilings, and most damningly, the specie backed notes were largely inconvertible, which kinda defeats the whole purpose.[3] Also, Sweden's banking system was ironically more reminiscent of central banking, for there were no competing currencies, but instead just a base currency, and it was issued by a state-regulated bank.[4] 4. More often than not, the Federal Reserve is successful at targeting inflation. The money supply is indeed distorted, but this is often used to to cushion the rise and fall of the business cycle, which is beneficial. And unless the Fed radically increases the money supply, distortions are not significant enough to form bubbles. "-=3=-" 1. No, I only admitted that voters are unfamiliar with specific and complicated legislation. As for the politicians themselves, they don't read the bills because they have staffers and lawyers who translate the information for them. They don't just make blind guesses when voting on House and Senate bills; that's ridiculous... 2. Bush and Obama both crossed party lines on certain issues, but that doesn't change their philosophical standing or party affiliation, which people are well aware of, thus this is not a valid refutation. 3. Not many people have read Marx or Smith, but they still have a general understanding of how Communism differs from Capitalism. You portray the average voter as not being able to decipher political philosophy at all, which is a very inaccurate representation. 4. Campaign finance reform will certainly be tough, but it isn't impossible to achieve. And once accomplished, the problems you cited will be solved. "-=4=-" 1. Well first of all, Social Security and Medicare provide healthcare accessibility for the elderly and disabled, which is beneficial for obvious reasons. Also, the collective debt of these programs won't reach $100 trillion until sometime around the end of the century. Much of this debt results from the SS funds being spent, which isn't a structural, nor unsustainable problem. In fact, Social Security will run a surplus until 2017, and according to the CBO, it won't be completely depleted until 2052.[5] 2. Private companies can create roads if they feel like doing so. However, some critical highway and infrastructure projects won't be undertaken if not profitable, which is axiomatically detrimental. In any case, US infrastructure is poor due to lackluster funding, not government intrusion. 3. I was referring to other government regulations, such as worker safety, child labor, anti-union discrimination, etc. 4. I don't see how this refutes the prowess of the NHS... "-=5=-" The government doesn't have access to perfect economic information, but in the case of extremely high or low market prices that harm consumers and producers, the imperfect information wielded by the government is far superior to the established market equilibrium. For example, if medical care wasn't imperative to an individual's health and well-being, the insanely high market prices wouldn't be such a devastating factor. However, in the real world, this just isn't the case. People do often end up getting sick and/or dying because of private healthcare inaccessibility. Under these circumstances, government intrusion is certainly justified, and it has proven to be VERY beneficial in many places all around the world, such as Canada, UK, Australia, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, and the list goes on. When compared to the United States' private insurance-based system, all of these countries hold higher rankings in quality, efficiency, accessibility, and especially cost. The fact of the matter is that the government is not always a retardant of beneficial market mechanisms. Lastly, thanks to Esuric for the stimulating debate. Sources: 1. http://www.pnhp.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://docs.google.com... 4.http://docs.google.com... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org...