Is the absence of something the same as failing at it?
One really can’t claim that government can be efficient at a task. There simply are not the incentives for productivity and resourcefulness like there are for individuals in the free market. The real question is whether not doing something is worse than restricting it for others and then failing to properly do it anyway.
For instance, government is a monopoly on force, supposedly necessary because without a centralized military people wouldn’t self-organize to provide for the demands of security. Never-mind that freedom offers the best way to innovate ourselves out of a problem, it is too important to have a failing entity than one that might not appear.