That's the only explanation for this article which describes the workings of a (partially)-privatized city:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/business/a-georgia-town-takes-the-peoples-business-private.html?_r=1&ref=business&pagewanted=all
Of course, not fully privatized, as the government still collects taxes and chooses the contractors, but interesting nonetheless.
And the biggest problem is NOT that the whole thing is based upon corruption and the residents are worse off being under the thumb of some far away company, but that this model is so good that it will create two Americas one where the poor folks are stuck under the thumbs of giant urban bureaucracies and one where the wealthy are under the lighter thumb (Except for police because private police can not ensure themselves against malfeasance.) of a patronized public-corporate bureaucracy.
You lost me there. Was that a parody?
Yes, in a breif time I was trying to point out the problem the NYT mentioned that just jumped out at me for how stupid it is. As usual the NYT in their quest to provide info-tainment has proven yet again that they have zero sensibilities in the areas of both morality and economics.