Even worse, whether government activity is labelled 'intervention' does not follow any sound logical pattern in practice.
To make it painfully obvious: When was the last time you heard somebody characterize the existence of limited liability companies as 'intervention'? Who out there consistently calls copyright law an 'intervention'?
It would be possible to use the term 'intervention' consistently. In actual practice, it is (typically) only used as a rhetorical device to support the speaker's preconceived political position. That causes the term to become loaded.
Because government activity is generally mandated (both in the sense that they can compel people to change their behavior or that people can't refuse to contribute money towards government endeavours), while private sector activity is generally optional.
That's not the meaning of intervening. It means something like meddling. The point is that when businesses do something to the economy it is not called an intervention.
To make it painfully obvious: When was the last time you heard somebody characterize the existence of limited liability companies as 'intervention'? Who out there consistently calls copyright law an 'intervention'?
It would be possible to use the term 'intervention' consistently. In actual practice, it is (typically) only used as a rhetorical device to support the speaker's preconceived political position. That causes the term to become loaded.