Yes, the private sector generally does things better and more efficiently than government. This really isn't a debate.

When it comes to public transit, there are likely many obstacles that government impedes on thus forcing it to be run by the public. Its often ran by the public and subsidized by tax payer money, even if its not free to use. Refer to NY subway. Reason Magazine did a great video about it recently.

But this is also an issue with US governments and left leaning cities being notoriously bad with money.

Agree with the first sentence, I always tell people the primary job of the government was simply to protect its citizens. Such as have police, military, keep the borders secure, make reasonable laws, etc. The problem today is people want government in every aspect of their life... but they still want privacy.

Private companies don't inherently screw people over nor are all companies equal, generally speaking I believe their focus is making money and paying what they have to for reliable and skilled people while working with regulations set by government. For example, most jobs pay well above minimum wage because that's how you get good employees. Lets remember the private sector does a better job lifting people out poverty or into wealth. The private sector is also where much of the innovation in the world happens. So maybe you need to be a little less commie about the private sector.

The thing is people in government can care more about staying in power versus our well being or making decisions that are actually good for the country. Then you get into a situation where politicians and media divide people to help keep a party in power. Hence, I think its funny if you can see the corruption in private companies but not government.

Without private companies, countries tend to fall apart or stay a shithole. Even countries that provide heavy social welfare rely on the private sector to actually bring in wealth.

To go a little deeper, in short:

At the far left, there is socialism - no classes, ethnic identity is irrelevant, and economic status is equalized, and those who have handicaps are aided by their need. National identities are irrelevant.

In the center, Liberalism - classes are determined by economic status which can change. Classes are not strictly defined, and all have the same base rights. Those who have needs may be helped by social or insurance programs, but this is not a necessity of a liberal society. 

At the far right, Nazism - classes are strictly defined in law (e.g. there were 5 sub-classes of Jew defined by law, each with various levels of rights prior to the exterminations of the Holocaust) and determined by genetic background. Rights are granted on the basis of class, with the Aryan Master Race (which is defined by the Nazis as the German people) being the ruling class.

Calling Nazism a form of socialism because the original German term translates to "National Socialism" is as false as calling a potato an apple because it translates from (some) German to Earth Apple. While in Germany there was absolutely no confusion between the two terms, the fact that foreigners are confused by the terms reveals the problem with translating the term to National Socialism instead of Nazism.

To explain the uselessness of the semantical argument "It's called National Socialism, so therefore it is socialism" is akin to a joke in the film "The Dictator" when Aladeen renamed the opposing terms 'positive' and 'negative' to "Aladeen" and the guy goes in and learns he is HIV Aladeen. It is not a useful comparison to use the argument of semantics to say Nazism = socialism.

The name “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” must be really perplexing for you, as it’s not democratic, of/belonging to the people, or even a republic for that matter, despite its name.  It’s almost like naming something does not guarantee it to live up to the established definition/s that the name might imply.  

Please don’t let this drive you into madness and turn you into a fish.  It is not my intent to play The Brown Note of Lovecraftian Horror for you.

Private enterprise usually lets a lot of people fall through the cracks, because they make their money on the other customers.  It's not necessarily their business model to make sure everyone without exception can take advantage of their service.  One example of this is electricity.  The cities got power, no problem.  But the rural areas were often too widely dispersed and with too few people for companies to consider it worth the expense.  So the government stepped in with the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 and installed the infrastructure that in some cases is still being used today. 

Just because you have talked to some ignorant "left wingers" doesn't mean any more than if I point to some "ignorant right wingers" who I know.  There was a guy who heard Trump talking about the trade deficit with Mexico and got all mad about it.  He thought we were literally shipping piles of cash across the border.  If you want to turn this conversation into a contest about which side has more ignorami, then whatever, but otherwise this comment is entirely vacuous. 

Uh no. In fact Islamic extremists that commit the terrorist attacks or are part of grooming gangs in Europe are always voters of the left wing party. I've seen what must be hundreds of examples at this point because I literally follow all the anti-Islamic twitter news feeds and I've seen facebook, twitter, dating profile leaks of suspects. The Islamic migrant isn't a tolerant liberal, but almost every Islamic person supports the left wing governments in Europe and left wing policies, extremist or not. The reality is that Muslims obey Nietzschian law at a very high rate and almost inversely that to Christians. Their belief system isn't conservative. It's to conquer the west. They don't support anti-abortion efforts (they would encourage non-Muslim abortions), they oppose gun freedoms, and attribute any criticism of their religion to hate speech. This is a huge reason people like myself on the right call leftists NPCs. Both might believe in two genders and want their children to be straight, but at completely different levels and that doesn't make someone conservative to want their children to produce offspring and be part of evolution.

I remember when Denmark's PM Lars Løkke Rasmussen BTFO Bernie Sanders when he tried calling them socialist. I don't think Germany's economy would have been so successful under Hitler if it were socialist. Fascist Italy had a lot more parallels to socialism than Nazi Germany and Mussolini was a communist in his early life. Also, gun control. They had a dual approach which pretty much confirms every gun freedom argument under existence. Guns laws were relaxed with the general population and crime rates went to historical lows, even by today's standards. The only people that guns were taken away from were Jews and political dissident and they had no ability to fight back because of it. Hitler was his own thing, and National Socialism imo was an alternative left of sorts with some right wing policies as I listed here. Even after the night of long knives there were leftist minded people under Hitler and included in policy making decisions. So it's very complicated as are Hitler's religious beliefs or lack thereof. In modern times, I certainly wouldn't call Richard Spencer right wing. He supports socialism way more than Hitler ever did. I wouldn't call him a leftist per say, but I would call him alt left more than alt right and he hates conservatives more than liberals if you actually listen to any of his monologues. 

"At the far left, there is socialism - no classes"

no classes? ok... so who creates the policies and enforces those policies?

"To explain the uselessness of the semantical argument "It's called National Socialism, so therefore it is socialism" is akin to..."

i'd say its almost as bad as stating socialism can work without a class system... but that's like really really bad... because it shows such an egregious lack of thought

but regardless its good though that no one made that argument

what people have said is that the nazis implemented socialist policies by the majority

the point that you people never seem to understand is that countries like that often become oppressive regimes THROUGH democracy

if people are stupid they can choose to vote their rights away as people are discussing right now with regards to limiting "hate speech"(which really has no meaning), limiting their freedom to defend themselves and so and so so

when rights are taken away democratically what do you figure happens then?

why are they not teaching this stuff in school? there must be a reason

"Facism allows the private sector to prosper."

this has to be the largest oxymoron i've seen in a while, i think this is even worse than "anarchocommunist"