Best government =IMO= least intrusive.
What's the difference between a totall (100%) intrusive government (which sounds like your ideal government) and anarchy?
A government still needs to be somewhat intrusive. A government exists to protect the weak from the strong, not to make the weak as powerful as the strong.
A government's primary job is to keep people safe from one another. To do so, it institutes laws that protect people from physically (assault, rape, murder) or injunctively (slander, theft, intellectual property infringement) harming one another.
A society's economy should be entirely self-regulated by the private sector. In an entirely self-regulated economy, Microsoft would not be able to survive indefinitely. Competing companies would start up, and some business owners would refuse to sell out. Would the majority holders of SCO sell out to Microsoft? Doubtful. Furthermore, competition is not only advantageous to the customer, but in the long-term, healthy for businesses and technology. To compete, companies must continually be innovating their technology.
A government is right to work at regulating this, but only to a certain degree. That degree is minimal: for example, government should step in and prevent collective individual owners from forming agreements to price-gouge. While this is generally an unlikely event anyway, because only one owner has to commit to do it and then not do it for the pact to fall apart, in Arizona, the gas station owners have been price gouging. All the other laws we have, and we don't have something worthwhile on the books. Arizona didn't even have a shortage of fuel.