But to be fair, that's not exactly what this article is about. It's simply a reminder that much wealth leads back to government contracts. Which is a healthy thing to remember.
I'm sure I can think of plenty more, but the litmus test is basically: "anywhere that a profit motive will pervert a desired neutrality and/or equality of service or its delivery". That's basically the purpose of government, after all. It provides the necessary services for the foundation of a civil society.
Anyway, on the topic itself, just imagine if governments were not corrupt...we have already come pretty far if you think of the massive infrastructure and systems (education, healthcare etc) governments have already implemented. None of it is perfect, but half of it wouldn't have happened if the private sector was just left to do its own thing. The private sector would simply milk everything dry if they are left to their own devices. The private sector has its role to play but they can't be left to their own devices with the expectation that market forces will serendipitously make everything balance perfectly.
It does seem odd to me that at this day and age we still have ideological 'government vs. free market' arguments. That's like arguing 'screwdriver vs. hammer'. The best tool is the one that best fits the job. We'd be much better off if instead, we argued about how to best mitigate the problems of each, and to best use the advantages of each. IMHO Libertarians and Communists are very similar: they think too much about the road, and not enough about the destination.
I think anyone that believes that the private sector or the government alone are the answer to our woes are drinking some pretty strong partisan Kool-aid. Like most things, a viable system requires a balanced approach. Why should it be as simple as this or that? We are a complex species and have complex societies that require complex governance. What I do know is that being "anti government" or "anti-private sector" is the wrong approach. We need both. Oh, and lessismore, I couldn't think of any aside from infrastructure and military. I know that without government assistance a TON of research wouldn't be possible because it's immediate profitability isn't evident. Beyond that, I've got nothing... mk, thoughts?just imagine if governments were not corrupt
-I always have to remind myself that government is really just a collection of human beings and human beings by their very nature are less than perfect. Therefore, it's nonsensical for me to expect that our government be better than I am. That said, consider the type of people that public service (on the national level) attracts? The scrutiny a candidate must go through, the amount of money they need to raise and the nastiness with which they must attack their opponent essentially weeds out any human beings of formidable character. I sure as hell wouldn't want to run for office.