[261582335426158]

The key point to add is that (at least) 2 points must be true for this positive side of market to show:

1) There should be "forces" counterbalancing the move toward monopolies

2) It should be okay for the service to fail/die and/or it should degrade gracefully.

For example book publishing is a wonderful field that can gain from free market dynamics while prison management is a terrible field for free market dynamics.

While a dying publishing enterprise might print less books at a lower quality with deceptive marketing (and that is sorta okay) a dying prison management enterprise will squeeze every ounce of dignity/health/safety out of its wards.

Market dynamics for the economy are analogous to natural selection for evolution: both can produce wonderful things but they will require many more to die horribly.

This is not a statement against markets but I am calling for this tradeoff to be considered along with many other.

[Nextgrid]

The same factor that makes private prisons problematic also makes taxation problematic - in both cases you've got a captive market that can't opt out thus no pressure to provide a good, efficient service. In a hypothetical world where inmates could choose whether to remain in prison and which one to be in, private prisons would be competing for service quality. Actually we've got that, they're just called "hotels".

I wonder if the solution there would be to force politicians and everyone involved to exclusively use government-provided services - so as a condition of going into politics, you can't use private healthcare, your kids can't go to private schools, and you need to spend a day every year in a random prison and so on. Then it would mean the decision-makers got at least some incentive to make sure these services are functional and fit for purpose.

[autoexec]

> The same factor that makes private prisons problematic also makes taxation problematic - in both cases you've got a captive market that can't opt out thus no pressure to provide a good, efficient service.

What you should have are companies that offer their best prices/services to the government out of fear that they'll be passed over and those highly valuable contracts will be awarded to their competitors who do better. Governments are incentivized to select the best companies to award those contracts to because they risk being voted out if people are unhappy with the level of service they're getting for their tax dollars.

Prisoners can't kick politicians out of office when they're unhappy about the state of the prisons so that's a huge issue with prisons in general, but private prisons have another issue which is profit. Whatever it costs to keep dangerous people locked up, private prisons need all of that money plus they must extract a bunch of extra money from the public just to stuff their pockets with. If private prisons want to keep prices low to the public but also want to keep filling their pockets with money they need to provide substandard care to the people they are responsible for. A non-private prison needs only what it costs to do the job and nothing more.

[Nextgrid]

> What you should have are companies that offer their best prices/services to the government out of fear that they'll be passed over and those highly valuable contracts will be awarded to their competitors who do better.

This requires a functional quality control system. It seems like it's cheaper to undermine/bribe (or just let decay whatever there is) the quality control system than to actually do better.

> because they risk being voted out if people are unhappy with the level of service

Votes only work if people are properly represented and have good alternatives to vote for, which doesn't seem to be the case in most countries despite them being considered democracies. Keep in mind that the leader of the DPRK is also "elected".