If you want to mentions specific countries we can compare them to the US.
It already is. The Food and Drug Administration exists. There are countless laws that dictate everything from how crops are. grown to how animals are treated to how products are labeled. Moreover, the government purchases enormous quantities of food and distributes it for the military as well as being involved in everything from food stamps to the famed "welfare cheese" strategic food reserve issues.
Now, it's true that the government isn't in control of literally every aspect of food distribution, but they definitely do things to ensure a stable food supply for the country at reasonable prices. (And then there are the billions and billions in farmer subsidies etc.)
Especially when you're being entirely disingenuous about your argument. I don't honestly understand how you can truly believe that corporate interests care more about people than the government. Perhaps you also believe that corporations are people, and at that point I guess I'd have to concede. If corporations are people, then they do care about people. It's just the one they care about is themselves.
Not every business is a cartoon mustache twirling villain but it's baffling to me to see the lengths people will go to to both outright dismiss the governments ability to do literally anything, and also that private enterprise can do it better.
Also the major sources of inequalities today go far beyond education, policing, and the justice system. Many of them are inexplicably tied to private enterprise. You don't want the government in charge of growing or distributing food. Well that's great. What's also great is that the cheapest food you can buy is also some of the most unhealthy trash you can put in your body. Soda is cheaper than water.
Yes, the civil justice system is more private-party focused, but you have conveniently left out why victims obtain judgements in civil courts when cops are not convicted in criminal courts. In civil litigation, a judgement is made based on the preponderance of evidence. In the criminal courts, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's easier for the plaintiff to win in civil court than for the prosecutor to win in criminal court.
Private/public control is inconsequential when compared to the level of proof required for conviction/judgement.
The primary issue is qualified immunity, coupled with the DA needing to rely on cops to do their jobs, leading to a massive conflict of interest. Unless the exact circumstances in one case occurred previously (and it was explicitly ruled illegal), a cop is let off due to the way qualified immunity works.
If a cop faced the same criminal trial as a regular citizen, they would very likely go to jail as most cases that go to trial result in a conviction.
However, it should be noted that some people, possibly even MANY people...do not have money or have limited money that must be allocated to stop death in one form or another. The market does not have a solution for them because they are not participants in the market. Yet they exist as a rather defined part of objective reality.
Privatization is charming and all, but it is not an end all, be all to the ills of mankind.
> Of course not. This experiment has been tried with horribly deadly results.
I assume you're referencing famines in communist countries, etc. In those instances, the government had a monopoly on food growth and distribution.
Your example is irrelevant because the USPS is just one of numerous mail carriers (UPS, FedEx, etc).
And I'm honestly not sure where all the USPS hate comes from: I think they actually provide pretty damn great service[0], at a pretty damn great price. Their financial struggles are mainly due to Congress heaping unreasonable financial obligations on them (obligations that companies like FedEx or UPS would never have). I don't think I could say they're objectively superior to the private couriers, but they're not objectively inferior either.
You mention education, and the issues there mainly boil down to lack of funding. The US spends a pittance per student compared to countries with much better public education. You could say ok, well, that's just proof that the government can't manage education well. And I guess that's maybe not false, but consider that a big reason why education isn't funded properly in the US is because of people (like Betsey DeVos) who want to kill public education, not because they truly believe the private sector can do it better, but because doing so will enrich their cronies. Regardless, you could flip it around and say that the US's public education is amazing considering how under attack its very existence is.
> the tort system, which is partly under private control
Not sure I understand what you mean. In a civil trial, you still have the same lawyers represent you, and you get the same public-servant judges, etc. The state's word is final when a judgment is rendered.
And in fact we do know what happens in civil matters when we try to privatize it: arbitration (often binding, because god forbid we disallow that), which is hardly a paragon of fairness or equality.
> ... is far more fair than the criminal justice system that is under public control
I don't think this is an argument about public vs. private, though. Yes, in a criminal trial, the prosecution has many, many tools available to them that a plaintiff in a civil trial wouldn't have, in the form of whatever law enforcement apparatus is at hand to help gather evidence and find witness testimony (and perhaps other nefarious things that they're in a unique position to get away with). But there's really no other option; you just can't treat criminal cases in the same way you treat civil cases.
There's a ton of inequality in our judicial system, but that has nothing to do with the public-sector private-sector dichotomy. In a civil matter, the state is a mostly-disinterested party, while in a criminal matter, the state has an inherent interest.
> which is why killer cops never go to prison but their victims get million dollar damage payments
No, that's because criminal proceedings have a much higher evidentiary standard. Which is how it should be, because the result of a criminal proceeding can deprive someone of their freedom or life.
[0] Two nice things the USPS does that the private couriers don't: pick up mail and packages from my building for free, and keep a key to my condo building so I don't have to be available to let them in.
I don't hate the USPS. I think it's mistake.
>You mention education, and the issues there mainly boil down to lack of funding.
Please spare me. The US spends an average of $15,400 per year per kid, which is an enormous cost. In NYC, it's even higher than this, yet their test scores and grades are worse than say Utah where the the cost is $5k per year per kid. Funding has, past an extremely basic level, no bearing on child academic performance whatsoever.
>Not sure I understand what you mean. In a civil trial, you still have the same lawyers represent you, and you get the same public-servant judges, etc. The state's word is final when a judgment is rendered.
In a criminal trial, only one party can file charges to begin with. The state. In a civil trial, anyone can file charges. Even after trial the inequality persists, which is why Roger Stone won't have to serve his full prison sentence. In a civil trial, the president/governor/mayor cannot pardon because he is not a party to the trial.
>In a civil matter, the state is a mostly-disinterested party
It is not a party, full stop. This is the advantage to the tort system.
>No, that's because criminal proceedings have a much higher evidentiary standard.
It's because the state simply chooses not to charge. Which is why the Director of National Intelligence did not get tried for committing perjury, and why Donald Trump hasn't been indicted with treason, and why it took Minneapolis to burn before Chauvin got charged with anything. The state has total control over criminal proceedings which is an enormous source of inequality.
So food is really important and vital. Should the government be in charge of growing and distributing food?
Of course not. This experiment has been tried with horribly deadly results. The basic fact of the matter is that the market is far more effective at fairly distributing goods and services. If you look at the major sources of inequalities today in our society, they are in education, policing, and the justice system, all of which are under public control. Interestingly enough, the tort system, which is partly under private control, is far more fair than the criminal justice system that is under public control, which is why killer cops never go to prison but their victims get million dollar damage payments. (as the old axiom goes, if the king controls criminal punishment, the kings friends get away with murder).
The point is, it's a total non-sequitur to assume that just because a decentralized system is the primary means of distributing something therefore implies that it only exists to make corporate profits at the expense of us poor people. Individuals like myself who are for wider privatization believe so because we care about people. I think people will be better off if the government isn't in charge of growing food, and I think people would be better off if more systems were privatized. It's not because I have a fetish for companies, it's because I think the general welfare would improve.