A public good is a commodity or service that is non-excludable (no one can be effectively excluded from using it) and non-rivalrous (one person's use of the good does not reduce its availability to others)

Examples include clean air, national defense, and public parks.

This isn't to say they shouldn't be provided by the government, but they're definitely not a public good

How can you list parks but not toilettes? If anything, pooping is as neccessary as breathing.

We all eat too. Is there no place for “business” in eating? Should all restaurants be nationalized?

No, but we try to guarantee that you have food.

There’s a substantial difference between governments trying to provide a service (which they are generally terrible at) and paying for a service on behalf of those who cannot afford it (which they tend to be reasonably competent at).

EBT is a pretty good program. Government grocery stores would almost certainly be an abomination (just ask your local public school cafeteria or military base mess hall).

Edit: adgjlsfhk1 is correct that “generally terrible” is overstated and simplistic. Hopefully better take downthread.

the idea that the government is inherently bad at providing services is just very silly. roads, postal service, and national parks are all really great services that the government provides. the idea that the government only does things well by paying private companies to do them just doesn't have basis in reality.

I take back “generally terrible”. How about “often spotty and rarely held accountable in practice”?

It’s not that governments literally cannot provide good services — it’s that when government appoints itself as a monopolist, outcomes and accountability become effectively disconnected, unless the service is so high-stakes and the quality is so abysmal that it rises to “vote the bastards out” territory.

Agreed that the government isn't inherently bad at providing services, but I do think it's important to define how we measure "bad." For example, does "bad" mean the UX is bad? If so, then government isn't inherently bad at it (though can be, see next paragraph). If we define "bad" as "less economical (i.e. more expensive/wasteful of resources) then it does have a general tendency toward bad.

It largely comes down to who is running the thing, and do they care? With private sector, they are forced to care because otherwise it will affect revenue and brand value, which will get the leader fired. The consumer is empowered with ability to spend their $ elsewhere, which rewards the better service and punishes the worse (note that this is becoming much less true in the age of giant corps, especially big tech). With government services, (particularly in monopolistic situations like the DMV), the consumer is largely powerless. They have no choice but to use the system given, and if they aren't happy they can complain but that complaint won't have any teeth (unless they happen to be politically connected of course).

tldr: I most agree, but it depends on how you define "bad"

> Government grocery stores would almost certainly be an abomination (just ask your local public school cafeteria or military base mess hall).

Military bases run PXs and commissaries and these stores have reasonable (mid to high mid) quality goods.

> Military bases run PXs and commissaries and these stores have reasonable (mid to high mid) quality goods.

The PXs are pretty good but are priced comparably or higher than free-market stores off-base, and even still are subsidized by base funds. The Class Six is very well done and potentially profitable, though that's just a guess.

The commissaries are much more expensive than off-base stores and likewise are subsidized by base funds. For the most part only the officer's and senior NCO's families can afford to shop at the Commissary.

Disclaimer: I left active duty in the late 00s so things might have changed since then

> (which they are generally terrible at)

They are only as good as the people in a jurisdiction let them be. Also, the governments you have experienced are far from generally representative.

Deleted

This rant is in such poor faith. Flagged.

I'm not very well traveled, but I think I've used a pay toilet in every country I've been to other than the US (and the little bit of Canada I've seen) They're illegal in many US cities (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_to_End_Pay_Toilets...), and American taxpayers don't like footing the bill. So we end up with Starbucks and Dunkin as de facto pay toilets, where you have to buy a pastry or drink to take a pee.

I don't really understand why it should be illegal to pay someone for a vital human need

Classic first order thinking. Forcing someone to pay directly to access a toilet is yucky. Voting against pay toilets makes you a good person.

Second order effects? Please. Those aren’t on the ballot, and are hard to stuff into a sound bite.

> Voting against pay toilets makes you a good person.

Voting against pay toilets makes you a foolish and counterproductive person that thinks you're a good person.

Yes, completely agree here. But that’s not mutually exclusive with the rent a potty idea. Public bathrooms in parks and such are often, by necessity, quite spartan. They have no toilet stall doors, don’t have the soap filled as often as necessary, have those weird metal mirrors rather than more useful mirrors.

I would honestly pay for rent a potty even if public toilets were (and they should be!) available and convenient.

Is there no room for grocery stores and restaurants too, since all humans need food?

If you’re looking for a role for government here, I could see budgeting in some tax breaks for local businesses that make their restrooms publicly accessible. The infrastructure is already there, no need for a complicated business model.

> I could see budgeting in some tax breaks for local businesses that make their restrooms publicly accessible.

People significantly underestimate the cost of maintaining clean public restrooms in urban areas.

When restrooms are used properly, maintenance costs are reasonable and predictable. But that is not what happens.

Restrooms contain private areas, and that reality invites other uses, like drug use, prostitution, and sleeping. And those uses come at a steep cost.

Separately, in my experience, many businesses do make their restrooms available to people who look presentable and who ask politely. They just don’t advertise it, and they may even advertise the opposite.

This. Absolutely spot on. The profitisation common services is absolutely disgusting. It is literally the reason we have governments to build and make available for the people.

That might be ideal, but we don't live in an ideal world. The public government isn't providing this in nearly any large US city. A few that have tried have ended their attempts due to the cost. CTA provided restrooms at the stations till the 1970s, but ended access to those due to the costs and safety concerns. Having pay restrooms would be an alternative to have no option at all.