I have a question to ask. Is privatization of everything reallygood? For example, if say we privatized scientific research. Then isn't it true that many scientific discoveries would not have been made since there are many scientific research that are not really profitable but are being carried out for the sake of human knowledge. There are many other things that may not be profitable but are a necessity for betterment of human life.
Wouldn't it be better to have such things be done in fifty years, then do them now when they are not marketable? You yourself are arguing against expensive unprofitable research, since you admit they don't have any immediate benefit. Capital generation is more important, so that discoveries are timed when they can be mass produced at low cost and sold at low prices to consumers who can afford them.
As it is, drug companies spend billions on research that takes a decade or two, and there are already mechanisms for evaluating returns far ahead in the future.
Do note that an oil well can take twenty years to break even on original exploration costs and all else, and oil companies still do it.
Not everything that is beneficial to us can be accounted in material terms. For example, Let's talk about parks. I am sure we do not want to pay a fee to visit a park but having a park nearby us is definitely going to be beneficial to us since we do need a break from our work sometimes. Why would someone actually construct a park using his/her own money near our office since it is not going to be profitable as no one would pay to visit that park. Yes it would be beneficial to have a park but privately no one is going to construct that park because it is not going to generate profit for them.
A bit about parks. "Profitable" in monetary terms does not nessecarily mean "profitable" in absolute terms of means and ends. People can and will build parks because they want them. Someone building a residential area knows that people enjoy parks, so they are likely to include them in thier plans. Likewise, neighbors in an area may decide to buy an unused parcel, or aquire an abandoned one, and turn it into a park. I've actually seen this happen personally. In my job, I'm occasionally going into severely depressed areas like North Philadelphia where there are loads of abandoned properties. The houses collapsed years ago, they're just vacant parcels with a bit of topsoil and grass on top of the brick and debris that filled in the old rowhome basements. In many areas, people have gotten together and made little community gardens and parks in an attempt to spruce up some of the nieghborhoods. Many are actually very nice. You can do a lot with some volunteered time and a bit of material.
The saddest part is that they city doesn't know about these. So they go ahead and plan to build Section-8 housing units on all the "abandoned" lots. They come and demolish these things and build more el-cheapo housing that will be trashed in a few years. The city sees them as "abandoned" on thier maps and just plows ahead. They use eminent domain to claim the old titles from the abandonded, absent, or deceased owners, and claim right over said land, despite the fact that a group of people have clearly homesteaded the property.
To me this is a clear example of how state beuracracy confounds the voluntary efforts of some of the poorest people in the nation to better thier lives.
"Terence Kealey is excellent on this point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_PVI6V6o-4"
That was a good lecture. Have you read his books?