Home » What if we didn’t have any public parks, schools or hospitals?

What if we didn’t have any public parks, schools or hospitals?

By Tom Jones

Sure, these things are great. But they cost money, and it is taxpayers’ money. Who can say that the private sector wouldn’t provide these services better and cheaper? Maybe the money should be spent on better alternatives. The government is notoriously wasteful. Maybe even more services could be provided if they were provided by the private sector instead of the government sector.

You may think that this idea is not feasible, but consider that the country, the states, the counties and the cities are in financial difficulty and seeking to raise revenue by raising taxes. How much higher can they raise taxes? When they cannot raise taxes, how will they pay for these services? As expenses exceed revenue, these services will be reduced, provided for a fee or even eliminated. Rather than paying the government more for less, why not give the private sector a chance without government interference?

If the government provided a tax-free status to the companies that provide these services, many companies would be encouraged to offer them. Competition would keep the prices affordable and the quality high.

Consider that the government taxes us and then decides what services they think would be best for us. Then the government spends this tax money to provide these services in an inefficient manner.

Look at education. The private schools provide a better education at a lower cost per student than the public schools. The government could use a voucher system and save money. Private companies could buy the existing schools, and it would provide revenue to the government.

Consider the public parks. We already have private parks in many private communities. Many public parks charge a fee to use. Could the private sector do it better and cheaper?

The private sector is already providing books and videos electronically. It is very possible the public library could be replaced by an electronic library in the future, making it very sensible for the private sector to provide this service.

Instead of taking money by force and coercing people to pay for services that they do not need or use, maybe it would be better to have the private sector provide these services. The people who need these services would pay for them, and they would be able to have a voice in the service. If the company didn’t provide the quality or type of service that they wanted, they could go to a different company.

In short, taxes would be lowered, government waste would be reduced, government cost would be eliminated, the people would have a choice, the people would have a voice and the services would be better.

What about people living in poverty? How will they be able to afford these services? Charities and churches could provide these services to these people. It could be done in many ways. Many churches already have schools. The needy could use the vouchers that the schools could accept as payment in full. Churches could provide reading rooms for the needy. Other charities, such as the YMCA, already help the needy and could buy passes to parks to allow the needy park use.

As the government starts to charge a fee, reduces the service, or eliminates it, the private sector may start to provide them anyway. As we start to use the service provided by the private sector, the revenue collected by the government for these services will decrease and the government will have to raise either taxes or fees. Needy families will not be able to afford these services. The problem is that we will still be paying the government with our taxes for services that have been discontinued or we are not using because they are provided by the private sector more efficiently.

2 Responses to "What if we didn’t have any public parks, schools or hospitals?"