I don't believe that's a true statement. If that were true, we wouldn't need government at all. Yet clearly we do.
There are lots of areas where government appropriately sets rules that benefits us all, that the free market would not do on it's own.
Examples, include:
We need to be dilligent against governmental abuses, but don't let that dilligence lead you into thinking that government is all evil and doesn't do some very good things.
Pollution is not a good example. The government enables pollution yet you give it credit for cutting it? Beleive it or not this country is capable of producing better and cheaper housing in the abscence of codes. Etc is not a good example either.
I will agree on defense but i limited scope. And I will add enforcement of property rights and punishing the guilty.
Have you looked at the crap being done in the name of Environmentalism with modern building codes? LEED is a joke.
First, I apologize for not responding sooner.
Your post is rife with the assumption that issues such as pollution cannot be addressed without regulation. What you fail to realize is that the cost of regulation includes protection from injured parties. In other words, if you follow the regs but screw a community, you're gtg. No fear of lawsuits. This is an oversimplification, but it is an issue. Without regulations, the injured parties are free to demand compensation for injury or damaged property.
Concerning the military, I hate to be the one to tell you, but through the two Bush administrations and the Clinton administration, the military has been highly privatized. Many of the admin functions, including a lot of C3 functions in theater, have been privatized. I'm not complaining, because the food is better.