You're right in one sense -- all government (in)actions should be considered, not an "interference" per se, but a choice made with at least some understanding o

You're right in one sense -- all government (in)actions should be considered, not an "interference" per se, but a choice made with at least some understanding of the consequences on society. As for the problem of interfering with the market... One issue is that a well-functioning market depends on the idea that price captures all information. This is central to the idea of the "invisible hand" guiding individuals to arrive at the correct level of supply to optimally satisfy demand. When government actions set prices, the market participants no longer receive the correct information. In turn, the market will arrive either at too much supply (and waste) or too little supply (and unsatisfied demand). In the case of housing, the government usually takes action to set prices for some homes lower than what market forces would arrive at. Therefore, the market will under-supply and some folks who want housing will not have it. The answer is to either allow prices to move without intervention or for the government to subsidize the supply of housing.