-rolls eyes- I'm not arguing against the free market here. I think I should establish that there are levels of freedom. You have absolute state control, or Stalinist communism, and then you have complete freedom, laissez-faire. Neither is beneficial. In between them, you have a vast and varied middle ground, all of which can be called "the free market", as aspects of each of them are free. Yes, certain freedoms lead to growth. However, others act against it.
Which freedoms act against growth, may I ask, and do they infringe on the freedoms of others (i.e crimes). Note that I do not view rights and freedoms as "positive".
In this case, I agree with you (to an extent). I'm not arguing that free markets should not be allowed (of course not, absolutism is never a good thing). I'm just saying total freedom isn't good either. The only difference between you and I seems to be where you and I draw the line that defines the freeness of a market - I tend to be more small c conservative insofar as that I do not trust businesses.
I trust business more than I trust the state (which, I admit, is an extremely low bar).
Alas, if only it were not so. However, you ask the average man on the street what he thinks of the effects of quantitative easing on aggregate demand and whether it will lead to stabilising adverse economic conditions and he will but look at you blankly. The point of representative democracy is that we do not have total control, but rather entrust control to those who know more on the matter.
Maybe ask the question differently:
Will printing a shitload of money, making the money he already has worth less, and giving the printed money to rich people fix the economy? (which is what QE does, all new money must go to the people considered credit-worthy, who happen to be already rich).
As for things like market failure, yes the market fails, but in the long run, the market is smarter than the government bureaucrat, because market participants have access to more information as an aggregate than government, even though individual participants may make incorrect decisions.
This idea of "ignorant masses ruled over by wise leaders" is the foundation of all forms of despotism.
I also take exception to your automatic assumption all governments must be bureaucratic. This is most certainly not true.
Name a government, at least a modern one, that does not have a high level of bureaucracy?