I never said that the
market was not highly instrumental to the positive changes we say, only that the
"free" market, as espoused by libertarians, was not responsible for the gains we saw - a distinction you seem incapable of making. All those factors you pointed to involve the market, not necessarily the "free" market of libertarianism. Labor unions, and this is a historical fact, did a lot to improve the life of the worker, and labor unions exist because the government intervened and helped them exist. Without the government to aid unions existence, they would have continued to be squashed, as they can still be today.
Additional things your theory has to explain:
1940's, 50's and 60's in America. A time of
massive government intervention, and also a time of
massive prosperity, so much so that it represents a "golden era" in peoples mindsets today.
Also, it has to explain modern day Sweden, Norway, and Germany; as well as their comparison to the modern day United States (which, last I heard, was the best example of a libertarian government in the world, according to libertarians).
*edit*
I just realized something...
If you try and bring up points in history when the market was much free-er than now, and the kind of effects it had on people, libertarians retort that the market wasn't free, that the government was involved, and that's why abuses were able to happen (if you try and bring up the late 1800's, you get a response about how unfree the market was, and how this lead to the problems people associate with the free-market). Yet, at the same time, libertarians (as seen above) try and use the same history to demonstrate the greatness of the free-market, and how it has been a great benefit to everyone. So, which is it?
it's a very strange stance to assume that Capitalists somehow had the power to compel workers to enter their factories; the workers did so because they viewed so as better than being the random pauper on the street, the malevolent thief or the common whore
I can't believe I let this go the first time...
No one I've seen has ever argued that the capitalists were able to compel the workers to enter their factories, rather that the conditions of society at the time compelled those workers to get a job, because those same persons needed money to feed and house their family. This is a fact of life libertarians ignore, and they act as if people choose to be hungry, choose to need shelter, etc. Many of these workers were immigrants, who came to America seeking opportunity. Sure, they found a job, but the capitalists didn't care about the individual worker, as they were easily replaceable. That's something libertarians also ignore, the power that the "job creator" has over the worker, because the worker is in a much more desperate situation.