Rilla, I have two points about your perspective:

(1) I don't know what you're arguing for. I know what you're arguing against, but it sounds like the god of the gaps fallacy, where because there are identifiable flaws in something, it automatically means something else is better (and that something is known). Markets are a thing, not because of how perfectly they perform, but because, despite their many flaws, they work better than state intervention. Except, however, for instances when state intervention is better, but those cases are exceedingly rare and possible they don't even exist.

(2) It looks like you're arguing against responsibility. Markets work better than state intervention precisely because they provide more consequences for the behavior of the actors within them. This is a very standard line of reasoning that we use for everything else, so why is it that when it comes to a host of entirely arbitrary issues, humans are thought best off when they do not bear as much accountability?

Compare two systems: One with food tastes regulated by the state and one with food tastes regulated by nothing. In the former, because of the broad brushes and inability to account for many factors, the kinds of foods you would eat are ones you don't necessarily like that much and they would never improve. But in the latter, you eat entirely whatever you like except for in the silly ways the highly flawed human body doesn't encourage it (like the ability for advertising to start getting you into fats at the expense of veggies, when you would probably like veggies more otherwise)