SamuelRSmith said:
Mr Khan said:
SamuelRSmith said:
As Friedman says, the Government should be the umpire, making sure nobody breaks the rules (such as this), not playing the game it self. The Government should be making sure that the restaurants are following the no-bugs rules; but never opening an "Obarmer King", itself. |
Right, but what if there are no financial incentives for Burger King under the free market, but Burger King's existence produces public "goods"?
That's where that whole argument against intervention falls apart. The free market needs judicious pushes in the right direction to optimize public benefit.
|
Give me an example of something that can only function when run by the public sector. The only two examples that I can really think of are national defence and law enforcement. Even in these sectors, private sector can cover a wide array of services. The US military, for example, continuously turn to private contractors to handle catering, hospitality, etc.
|
Law enforcement and fire departments? Do you want a rent-a-cop system or one where selective payment of fire protection in a town happens, where some people in a town have fire coverage and others don't? They had cases where they privatized prison systems, and judges got bribed. There is cases where some things end up best in the public sector, as opposed to private sector, in case where if everyone doesn't get covered and pay in, things can be worse. Disease control can be one also.
Anyhow, the original post had to deal with the belief than some people express where that the free market alone can end up causing businesses to fail if they don't do what is needed, and government doesn't need to get involved. On that note, some who show up in other threads on here that get intot his, haven't posted in here.
