Your argument is well stated, if I understand it, as the power of free markets to make better choices regarding resource allocation than redistribution by government bureaucracy.
If so, then I can disagree.
However the market behaves in the United States, it has failed us.
Compromise with market forces, in the form of "public-private partnership", has only increased the cost of providing fewer government services.
Market forces won't fix healthcare. Won't invest in early a stage tech development or scientific research that might take decades of investment before becoming amenable to market-driven participation.
Market forces most certainly won't provide adequate care for children or elderly.
I think their first point is different than just free markets. It was about shifting the locus of control from the government, to the individuals.
1) Instead of having the money taken from you and begging the administration to do what you want, let people decide what they want, and voluntarily collaborate using the tools and organizations they choose.
This may be the government or another organization, but the individual would have the power to withdraw their support unilaterally. Essentially make more social investment and participation voluntary.
This would be a shifting of the power downwards and a decentralization.
Switzerland is an interesting case study for this. Approximately 70% of all taxes go to the Canton or lower levels (comparable to a US state county). This means the vast majority of tax spending and oversight occurs locally.
This makes a lot of sense to me. If I want social investment, a new school, or transportation, my money goes all the way to the capital, and then I have to fight to have my voice heard among 350 million Americans fighting for attention. I'm arguing against another citizen 2 thousand miles away through dozens of proxies and bureaucrats.
I recognize that some activities benefit from economies of scale, but many don't, or suffer diseconomies of scale.
If so, then I can disagree.
However the market behaves in the United States, it has failed us.
Compromise with market forces, in the form of "public-private partnership", has only increased the cost of providing fewer government services.
Market forces won't fix healthcare. Won't invest in early a stage tech development or scientific research that might take decades of investment before becoming amenable to market-driven participation.
Market forces most certainly won't provide adequate care for children or elderly.
Every society requires social investment.
But maybe I don't understand your point. Sorry.