You made a prejudicial statement, which only considered negative externalities of privately run institutions like roads, schools, fire and police services as valid...That was no accident.
This ain't my first rodeo.
Almost any statement of
opinion is going to be "prejudicial". I made a statement of MY opinion.
You made a statement of YOUR opinion:
Ahhh...The old red herring boat nets yet another bounty.
Just because those things are done by collectivist structures doesn't mean that's the only or most efficient way that they can be done. In fact, the late great Robert Nozick came up with workable ways each and every one of those things could be done by free enterprise and voluntary exchange. Moreover, only one item there -the armed forces- is provided for in the federal charter.
In any case, if that's the best list you can come up with of the "great successes" of socialism in America, I wouldn't be too eager to bring up the matter to begin with.
....which, by the way sounds pretty "prejudicial" too.
If it ain't your first rodeo, quit acting like it is by assuming implications that aren't being made.
OK...How 'bout you come up with a less arguable list of "successes" of the
federal socialistic welfare state?...No punting to local matters like fire & police departments, sewer and water, etcetera.
I'm not talking about the "federal socialistic welfare state". Now who's making prejudicial statements?
Here is my list. Whether or not they are "success'" depends on how you term it - I regard success as better than what I've seen done privately on a large scale. I also happen to personally believe that the best results are through a combination of private and public.
Welfare. Welfare is a comprehensive term - it's not one program. It includes disability payments and services, housing, aid to children through schools, medical etc. Yes - the current welfare system SUCKS. It sucks because it is big, centralized, one-size-fits all. It sucks because one of the unintended consequences is dependency/entitlement mentality. I believe it needs considerable overall. But I still believe it's better than a solely private system. I do not support a system as comprehensive as those found in some European countries - but that is not what we have.
The reason is that when we depended on private charities alone there was considerably more REAL poverty in the United States. By that I mean real hunger, children living on the streets, inability to afford even the most basic medical care. Disabled people who couldn't work with help had no choice but to be dependent on others. Private charities do a lot of good but they did not and can not and will not provide a complete enough safety net on a large scale. Charities will often have strings attached - that is not necessarily a bad thing and it's their right but it restricts the pool - they do not have to help anyone or everyone in need. They can pick and choose according to their criteria.
For all it's problems - I define it as "successful" because it's safety net is more comprehensive than what was available before.
Consumer protection/Food safety/Workplace safety - I'm lumping these together for convenience and again, look at history as an example of what it was like before we had any sort of federal oversite or rules. Look at what happens when those rules are relaxed (BP oil spill, Massey mine disaster) and compliance is optional. Sure we still have outbreaks of E. Coli in food supplies - but far less frequently then before and we have mechanisms in place to track it down, enforce recalls, remedy it and not hide it. We have one of the safest food supplies in the world no matter where you are in this country.
Public Education. Sure, we here a lot of hype on how "bad" it is and how "good" private is.
But what are the facts?
Public schools must take EVERYONE. Private schools can pick and choose and no government has the right to force them to take everyone. That can certainly skew statistics when you're looking at "success".
Both gun the gamut from excellent to poor but when it comes to public schools all the hype is on how "poor they are".
How "poor" are they really?
According to a 2006 report referenced in this article
:
...The Department of Education has released a new report on the quality of education offered by public schools vs. private schools. The release was timed for Friday and, according to the New York Times, "was made with without a news conference or comment from Education Secretary Margaret Spellings."
If this suggests to you that public schools came out OK in this new study, you'd be right. Basically, it was a review of NAEP scores in math and reading that was controlled for things like gender, race, English proficiency, poverty level, etc. Here are the average scores for public schools compared to private schools:
* 4th grade reading: +1.1 points.
* 4th grade math: +4.1 points.
* 8th grade reading: -5.7 points.
* 8th grade math: +0.6 points.
Not great when it comes 8th grade reading, but better in the lower grades then private and better in math.
The author also concludes:
But what does seem to show up over and over again is the effect of concentrated poverty. Nearly everything I've read suggests that when the number of kids in poverty reaches about 50% in a school, teaching becomes nearly impossible — and that this matters much more in secondary school than in elementary school.
And public schools must take everyone.
Another example I would give is environmental protection - despite the cumbersomness of the system, it is better than most private attempts.
I thought of Ram, after watching a commercial of the Ram truck, and thought if he HAD to change his name, that would be more in keeping with my subjective image of him. Either way, " a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet." 
