More like since 1861.  Despite being three branches, the federal government ultimately checks itself now that the states have been stripped of the majority of their rights.

Honestly, how could we not expect the feds to go the way they have when they ultimately are their own keepers.

The fastest way to find the most innefficent means of providing a service is to allow a government to provide it.

Government input is the impetus of our national problems. Pushing their noses further into our anal cavities won't fix the problem.

The solution is never that which begets the problem.

Why in the most free nation on Earth is the free market being rejected for corporate facism and social centralizing ambiguity?

I'll quote an economic website's accepted definition of why this statement is wrong.  If you want to learn more about economics visit the website and you can easily navigate the site there.

MARKET FAILURE

When a market left to itself does not allocate resources efficiently. Interventionist politicians usually allege market failure to justify their interventions. Economists have identified four main sorts or causes of market failure.

• The abuse of MARKET POWER, which can occur whenever a single buyer or seller can exert significant influence over PRICES or OUTPUT (see MONOPOLY and MONOPSONY).

• EXTERNALITIES – when the market does not take into account the impact of an economic activity on outsiders. For example, the market may ignore the costs imposed on outsiders by a firm polluting the environment.

• PUBLIC GOODS, such as national defence. How much defence would be provided if it were left to the market?

• Where there is incomplete or ASYMMETRIC INFORMATION or uncertainty.

Abuse of market power is best tackled through ANTITRUST policy. Externalities can be reduced through REGULATION, a tax or subsidy, or by using property rights to force the market to take into account the WELFARE of all who are affected by an economic activity. The SUPPLY of public goods can be ensured by compelling everybody to pay for them through the tax system.

http://www.economist.com/research/economics/alphabetic.cfm?letter=M#marketfailure

That doesn't prove why it is wrong at all but points out 4 possible market side reasons for poor service.

It gives nothing to support the governments ability to do better of which many, many examples exist of government collectivising the market and burning it to the ground in the process.

I dont think you understand the economics behind your statements.  You have come to the opinion that the market is efficient at providing goods and the government is inefficient, and though that is true for some goods and services, it is not true for all.

The economic reason that governments can be less efficient is that they act as both a monopoly and a monopsony, meaning that they have control over both the supply and demand of goods and services.  Because they are a monopoly, they have no incentive to be competitive or to sell goods at market value, and because they are a monopsony they dont buy goods at market value.  But without the market they have no idea what the actual value of the good is. 

This is why the Soviet Union was so inefficient.  I'll recall some stories I've read about the Soviet government:  The government didnt know what the demand of toilet paper should be so they severly under produced it, and it was common sight to see people on the street with toilet paper stuffed in their coats, bags, and carrying as much as they could because it was so difficult to find a store that had any in supply.  Also, there was a agency that determined the prices of all goods in the country and they presented their plans to Stalin who looked over them.  When Stalin saw that the price of flour was twice the price of sugar, he remarked that everyone knows sugar costs more than flour and switched their prices.  Its not hard to imagine all the problems that would be caused by this system.

However, when a government entity operates in the free market, like many nationalized corporations around the world do, they are in competition with other companies, causing them to buy and sell goods at market prices.  In this case, the government is just as efficient as privately owned company.

Also, it is necessary for the government to intervene in the market on behalf of their country.  For instance, the South Korea government wanted to improve their economy so they decided to build an automobile industry.  It was impossible for a startup company to compete with well established corporations already in the market, so the government heavily intervened and heavily subsidized their automobile industry until it was able to compete with the rest of the world.  Now South Korea has a very strong automobile industry that hires hundreds of thousands of workers and greatly improves the economy, but they wouldnt of had that if the government didnt intervene.