> One of the main roles of government is to step in where markets fail.

Because that's worked out great so far?

In every case I can think of, the government (usually because it's already captured) only ever serves to further exacerbate the issue.

Seriously? You can't think of how it was useful that the government mandated that factory door must remain open to help prevent human deaths in case of a fire? You can't think of the advantages of governmental food and medicine safety obligations?

The government has had some wins, and it would be naive to say they haven’t.

They have also had many catastrophic failures.

It’s unclear whether in the end regulations trend towards net benefit, but it does seem likely that the more nebulous a problem, the harder it is for government to get it right. Or anyone, for that matter. But especially government because the feedback loop is so slow and bad.

Has a government never prevented a merger that would have created a monopoly?

That's literally my point. When you want behavior that is contrary to market incentive you need laws not guilt ridden editorials.