Regarding the logic of Mises discussion of interventionism, it seems to   
me that Sanford Ikeda has made a pretty solid case supporting it. What   
is often missed is that Mises asked about intervention from the point of   
view of the person proposing an intervention. To what outcome, he asked,   
would the intervention proposed by a particular interventionist lead? If   
it did not achieve the outcome intended, then what would the   
interventionist suggest next in order to achieve the intended outcome?  
  
Ikeda, Sanford (1997). Dynamics of the Mixed Economy: Toward a Theory of   
Interventionism. London: Routledge.  
  
"This book is an effort, at what appears to be a timely moment in   
history, to reintroduce a revised version of Mises's analysis of the   
mixed economy into the current conversation on public policy. Its point   
of departure is Mises's critique of interventionism, the development of   
which spans a number of writings over several decades, beginning in 1912   
with a short appraisal of price controls in The Theory of Money and   
Credit (1971: 254-9) and culminating in a lengthy discourse in his Human  
Action (1966: 716-861) in 1949." (Ikeda, p.2)  
  
Pat Gunning