[palmotea]

> I know that the next step is you explaining why these don’t count, or saying “wow only 3” or whatever, but

Oh, there's more: Medicare, Social Security, the highway system.

The whole food/medicine regulatory system is also a big one, and it's the reason a lot of US (and European) products like baby formula are imported into China, because they can be more trusted.

My bet is the GP's going to weasel out using his "that people willingly buy" language. The flawed assumption there is the government should be conceptualized as just another company selling in the market, when the government's actual role is very different.

[SunshineTheCat]

As with anything, they are all things that could be done better by a company.

Airlines are a great example of this. They have changed very little in the last 30 years (again, thanks to all the government regulation and red tape).

Smartphones, TVs, (and literally anything else not in the hands of the government) has also seen rapid improvements.

Anything the government handles is always rife with overspending, inefficiency, and corruption.

A company must maintain profitability to stay alive.

The government on the other hand, is $38 TRILLION dollars in the red.

Yes, the things that "people willingly buy" are the literal engine that makes all of this possible. It is not the reverse.

[fyredge]

> As with anything, they are all things that could be done better by a company. No

> Airlines are a great example of this. They have changed very little in the last 30 years (again, thanks to all the government regulation and red tape).

And thanks to regulations, we have less airline accidents than ever. Private companies are more than willing to "externalise" any accidents from cutting costs otherwise.

> Smartphones, TVs, (and literally anything else not in the hands of the government) has also seen rapid improvements.

So does government funded medical research, which improves the quality of life of people corporations deem "unprofitable".

> Anything the government handles is always rife with overspending, inefficiency, and corruption.

Because large corporations and rich donors lobby them to do so.

> A company must maintain profitability to stay alive.

So does a government, debt only lasts as long as the lender believes in your ability to pay it back.

> The government on the other hand, is $38 TRILLION dollars in the red.

And which of the Mag7 are not in debt? I remind you that if you wish to compare the USA to companies, they are literally an entity of over 300,000 people. No company employs that many people.

> Yes, the things that "people willingly buy" are the literal engine that makes all of this possible. It is not the reverse.

No, government enforced order is what allowed the engine to exist to begin with. No one would innovate if their IP could not be protected, and we would regress back into cartels if the government could not enforce private property.

The prosperity of the modern world is build upon a foundation of solid governance.

[mbgerring]

No, you misunderstood me:

When I ship packages, I could choose to use a service other than USPS, but I don’t, because USPS is generally cheaper and more reliable.

I strongly prefer Medicaid to my employer-provided healthcare plans because of ease of use, and if I were allowed to I would willingly pay more money into it, either via taxes or direct premium payments, when I am making too much income to qualify.

I gladly give money to the NPS every year, even though I have a choice to pay for a private campground, or other public lands agencies.

I answered the question. You can choose to believe I didn’t all you want.

[wredcoll]

Remember how great the privately owned meat packing plants were at making sure the food was safe?

> Anything the government handles is always rife with overspending, inefficiency, and corruption.

Boy will you be surprised when you get a job.

[cyberax]

Oh yeah. I feel sooooo good dealing with Comcast. At this point in life, I spent more time on the phone with Comcast support than I ever spent time in various DMV offices.

> A company must maintain profitability to stay alive.

Yeah. And once it becomes a monopoly (like Comcast), it can just keep raising prices.

[Dylan16807]

This discussion about the purpose of government is valid as a way to disagree with the "willingly buy" language, but it's still true that most of those examples don't answer the question and to refuse them is not "weaseling out".

[palmotea]

> but it's still true that most of those examples don't answer the question

That's because the question is bad. It was meant to challenge the benefit of government, and a non-answer was meant to be interpreted as "government < business." But at its core is was fundamental misunderstanding of government, so if the question was answered mindlessly, it was unfairly biased towards the asker's biased conclusion.

> and to refuse them is not "weaseling out".

It'd be weaseling out of the faults of the question.

[WalterBright]

> My bet is the GP's going to weasel out using his "that people willingly buy" language

Well, they aren't willingly buying it. They are funded with taxes.

[wredcoll]

People can choose not to use a lot of those things.