I find it a bit disturbing that you value entertainment on TV as "great" and "state hospitals" and "schools" as crappy.
In fact, overall, it seems like you value as "great" everything around you that don't implies interacting directly with other humans, and as "crappy" about everything that does.
So if the free market purpose is to value antisocial products while making every social bonds look crappy, well, I'm not so sure I love it.
You're misinterpreting my quick examples. I am talking about the whole product (or my experience of it) rather than about the people involved. The people are often great, including in those schools and hospitals I disliked so much.
My best absolute best experiences are with people and involve no markets nor governments: family, friends and professional peers.
Look at the innovation pace of products delivered by free market vs those by government. If government made computers, they would still be big as room and only the rich could afford them. Meanwhile free market delivered computers into your pocket with power and capabilities that just 10 years ago no one would believe.
Our education system preparing our kids for future is still basically the same as our grand-grand-parents was.
Just imagine where our hospitals and schools could be if not crippled by government..
If not "crippled by government", schools and hospitals would be Darwinian shitshows that absolutely guaranteed rising health and income inequality.
I agree that things like fast computers are nice side effects of allowing capitalism to go to work in some arenas, but, in others, you definitely need government to reduce the pernicious effect of unadulterated profit motive.
It's appealing to think to yourself "hey, I make pretty good money, why shouldn't I be able to use that to buy a higher-than average education for my kid?" This is fine--hire a tutor. But taking your tax dollars to a for-profit selective academy that most don't have the option of using contributes to the degradation of public schools that you helplessly claim to be an unavoidable consequence of their being government-run.
Institutions meant to serve all only work when everyone contributes to them. Private, unregulated healthcare and education, by design, only serves those with money. Since health and education are, in the long run, how we generate personal wealth, this scheme is sure to accelerate the widening of inequality.
private schools and hospitals would be Darwinian shitshows that absolutely guaranteed rising health and income inequality
Reality disagrees. Pretty much everywhere where private schools and hospitals are allowed at least to some degree, they provide better value and results for everyone, including the very poor: https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21660063-where-gover...
Hospitals the same. In my country (eastern Europe) the difference between state hospital and private hospital is like difference between two centuries. The beauty of free market is that it lowers the costs for everyone. So the poor will always have "less luxury" at given time period, but in absolute terms will be much better of with free market then with state services. In eastern post-communist Europe, this is evident on every step.
In fact, overall, it seems like you value as "great" everything around you that don't implies interacting directly with other humans, and as "crappy" about everything that does.
So if the free market purpose is to value antisocial products while making every social bonds look crappy, well, I'm not so sure I love it.