>Sure, by closing the unprofitable branches, cutting service to thinly populated areas, cutting maintenance and staff to look more profitable for the IPO or to boost the stock price, looking for a good sale of the whole business or selling more stock. What would prevent a next Enron in this case?
>
>So am I to infer that you believe the government to be much more virtuous and altruistic than private enterprise?

I don't see where you got that, but then your methods of inference aren't exactly new to me.

If government sets something up as a system, it just damn has to cover all the country. Or do you imply that the gov't is at liberty to, say, provide no defense for Alaska and Hawaii, or no passports to Idaho? They can't just turn the service off where they don't make enough profit, they are a public service, created in public interest. A business doesn't have such an obligation.

>So what is your point? Do you honestly believe that everyone has a right to health insurance, internet service and a post office in their town? What else does everyone have the right to? Just curious. IMHO, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness just about covers everything that people should have a right to.

Equal chances in court would be fine, too. Liberty from debt incurred by others should be there among the liberties (such as the debt created by the FED, GSachs, IMF etc) - why would our children have to pay for stupid things done by the government we deserved? Freedom of assembly should be fine, too, so if one starts a union, doesn't lose the job the next day just for that. I guess that one already exists, but enforcement should rank higher than RIAA racket.

Health insurance, such as it is today, is mostly a scam, so I'd prefer that there'd be a right to be protected from it :).

Suppose you, the people, decide that basic internet service is as much a right as elementary schooling. How would you prefer it to be organized - by local businesses, big businesses, an independent agency controlled by you, or by the government?

People here ask me "Internet in the US must be ten times faster than here" - and I have to disappoint them. First, it's only three times (for the same money), and then I have to add "but it depends on where you are - in some places, it is ten times, in some, it's a lot slower, and in some there's none". It's a choice that's been made, in 1999 I guess, to hand the internet to the businesses - and that's what you get. You get internet everywhere where there's sufficient demand and money to back it up and a business ready to respond to that demand, which is not exactly identical to "everywhere". Had a choice been to have gov't provide the basic infrastructure (i.e. cabling etc), it may have been slower, but it would be everywhere.

Like I said, my own historical records weighs somewhat towards government, plus the record of privatized public utilities. I'm not saying government is the best - I'd rather see a well-controlled non-profit at a local level, not something with a call center on Florida or in Mumbai - it's just that I trust big business even less.