Hacker News Reader

Comment by Daishiman | Hacker News Reader

Another self-serving Libertarian-themed post that works under the flawed premise that market forces can replace all natural monopolies efficiently, as well as surpass the laws of physics.

There's a whole bunch of reasons why you don't want infrastructure to be privatized, the biggest of which being because infrastructure will not be profitable everywhere, yet that doesn't take away its strategic value not the idea that there are some fundamental services that should be reasonably available to all citizens.

View on HN

I didn't seem to read the same vulgar libertarian subtexts that you did. It was more an outline of computer technology enabling an easier proliferation of alternatives to state-provided services. There isn't much of a value judgment being made, in fact it notes that "opportunities are being exploited by a range of startups and companies who are essentially building private infrastructure, mainly for the relatively wealthy".

I see the absence of a value judgement in the observation of the infrastructure of a developed country falling apart and as explicitly saying that it doesn't really concern him.

As a citizen, investor, whatever, that fact should be frightening for all sorts of reasons. The investment opportunities are, if anything, a minor consolation.

I don't think you'll find a lot of people cheering for obscenely bad causes, but you'll definitely find a lot of people who have very neutral opinions and opportunistically seize business opportunities without much regard of the externalities and systemic effects.

Which critical infrastructure cannot be profitable?

I have never seen buses and trains being profitable.

Postal services in rural areas operate at a loss. Same thing with internet and phone connectivity.

I'm very skeptical on all three, do you have any supportive data?

It's a Google search away. Seriously, the story of the cost of supporting public transportation. But you can have a link to the latter assertion http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/should-we-continue-to-subsi...

It is most certainly not. The inefficiency of USPS doesn't speak to the inherent inability for buses, trains, postal services and internet providers need to be subsidised. That it a huge claim you've made, one link on the inefficiency of USPS(a government funded service...) does not suffice.

The inefficiency of the USPS speaks to the inefficiency of government services. They've lost $47bn over 10 years. Why? Because they have no incentive to care about their business model, because they can be apparently infinitely supplied by taxpayers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com