Look at fire departments.
Weak example, from a hundred years ago. Today no fire department will sabotage another or commit arson. Plus, the current trend is for emergency services becoming increasingly privatized.
Look at the military.
There's lots wrong with govt contracts and procurement that has nothing to do with privatizing government services. The government isn't going to bottle its own cola, its always going to buy it. Private mercenaries do little more than watch their own backs, many of them are former military, and they can't hold a candle to the military elite forces, which is a more fair comparison. The troops will never have bleeding edge products in the field, there will always be something better available in the market than what they are currently using. I was in the army when I saw it whittled down due to budgetary cuts crammed through by Senators Gramm and Rudman; I saw a hurried and reckless Reduction In Forces implemented while Clinton was president; the plan was to rely more on Reserve forces, which subsequently got little extra funding. Then Bush made the mistake of thinking he was going to war with the same military his dad had for the liberation of Kuwait. Not sure how the administrators of Walter Reed had a profit motive (??). If you want to see what government administered healthcare looks like, Walter Reed is your answer.
Look at healthcare.
Americans pay more from private funding maybe, but not compared to how much socialized countries pay for health care through taxation. Free market forces are the best determinates for prices, costs, expenses; not some arcane bureaucratic formulations. Healthcare in the US is the most expensive because we're funding the majority of innovation (among countless other reasons having nothing to do with privitization) and I agree with some of your other points on this. But bottom line, I've lived in countries with socialized medicine and my opinion is: NOT FOR MY KIDS.
Things like the military and healthcare (and education, and post) should NOT be put into a private system. Corporate monopolies are a significant threat in a truly private system, a bigger threat than a government monopoly. I would much rather a public (government) monopoly which is beholden to me, than private one beholden only to its large stock-holders.
Oh lord, so much is wrong with that statement. Where does the government get its money and power from? You. Where do private corporations get their money and power from? You. Which one is far, far, far more beholden to you? The private corporation. Because the government always ultimately has recourse to the lawful use of force to make you do whatever it has currently set as law. Maybe you have a constitutional right to petition, grieve, lobby, vote, etc. But how quickly and how completely will it ever respond?
A free market responds to signals from its consumers way faster than a government responds to its constituents. The genius idea behind American Idol is that it speeds up that process even more. Pop music generally relies on this massively flawed system of signals from the consumers, in the form of record sales, and music marketeers made more of what sold better, and tried to anticipate the next trend. In a couple hours of voting AI marketeers have a clearer idea of what will sell, without back room deals and bjs mucking up the system.
The internet, as a utility, should be neutral. Let companies build on top of the open, fair, neutral system.
The government should be neutral. It should protect private property rights and allow companies to barter whatever deals they wish. They shouldn't try to steer the direction of commerce. That should be a private conversation between competing companies and their customers.
Japan has a reputation for being leaders in the area of tech. But the majority of the most elemental and important innovations rarely come out of Japan. They often put together technology in new and interesting ways, they do a great job of manufacturing. But they don't have an OS or chip design or significant software contributions. Where's the japanese Google, Napster, Youtube, IBM, AMD, Apple? For all their early adopters, how often does one of their unique creations reshape the global tech landscape? They make great products which compete with similar products from other places.
Cars are hardly worth talking about. The labor that goes into and profit that comes out of a Honda vehicle is nearly split equally between Japan and the US. American cars have foreign made parts so it works both ways. The socio-economic forces that led to more fuel efficient cars were in motion before the government got involved. An argument can be made that artificially heavy handed feel-good legislation cost car makers and consumers money unnecessarily and resulted in a rushed and inferior route to better fuel efficiency.
If the US citizenry desired less caffeine in Starbucks house blend they could get a faster, better, more efficient and cost effective change by voting with their cash dealings with Starbucks, rather than lobbying the government to eventually make a law with pages of justifications and regulations and implementations and forcing compliance from Starbucks.
No matter which way the net neutrality legislation goes, here's who WILL NOT pay for the result: The telcos/cable cos; the content providers; the government; Japan; Canadian drug companies; etc. You know who's going to pay: us.
That "us" is either: "us" as internet users; "us" as cable/telephone/internet users; or "us" as taxpayers; or any combination of the above. We will all pay for whatever it takes to keep the internet alive.
If you're a leftist, the best solution is to spread the costs to the largest number of people through taxes and regulations, regardless of an individual's personal use of or benefit from the internet; that is, tax individuals and corporations (thereby doubly taxing the consumer). In addition, may as well weaken property rights of the corporations that re-invested profits into infrastructure, by forcing them to now share their assets with start ups who haven't made those investments.
If you're on the right, the best solution is for the government to provide security, enforce contracts, and uphold property rights.