Comment by DrScientist

At it's worse yes, at it's best absolutely not.

The role of government, at it's best, is to ensure the system as a whole benefits the democratic majority as a whole.

The argument that unregulated free markets will deliver has a key flaw - people who work in private companies don't want endless free and fair competition, especially if they are currently in the lead, they are also incentized to dump as much of the true cost of what they are doing on to other people.

So companies will chose cartels and monopolies over competition, choose pollution over responsibility, offload infrastructure and people costs onto others etc, minimise tax rates ( avoid paying for stuff they use ) etc.

Assuming an unregulated market is best is like assuming a football game is better if there are no rules. Turns out cheating is easier than competing almost everytime - and without government to set and enforce the rules you end up with pollution, crime ( people decided the rules don't work for them ), stagnation, and a feudal society.

Take something as simple as rule of law. A free market approach to that is there is no law, everyone negotiates each interaction and enforces their will with personal force. Turns out that's both exhausting and chaotic - much better to collectively agree what is legal or not and then have collective enforcement.

Sure it's slower to change, sometimes unfair, but pretty much every group of people in every country in the world has evolved a system of government rather than go with anarchy.

So good government is all about building - building complex systems - constantly adjusting them as people try and game them - that result in optimal outcomes for the majority of people.