1.) I agree with your argument that a free market with some govt intervention is the proper system for solving such market inefficiencies (i.e. coordination problems amongst infrastructure providers who have different interests than the general public in emergencies).
However, it's not a binary decision between the Wild West and nationalization. The scale goes from:
* Standards ("Here's the minimum." - building codes)
* Checks ("Ask us if it's okay." - gun background checks)
* Certification ("Tell us, and we'll make you more legit." - LEED [non gov't I know])
* Licensure ("You must tell us." - Liquor License)
* Incentives ("Do this and we'll help you." - Tax Credits)
* Nationalization ("Only we can do it." - Post Office)
You gain coordination of public interests and lose long-term innovation as you go down the list. Looking at how many disasters are handled with WalMart, Home Depot, FedEx having better response times - due to their economic incentives.
I'd propose solving this market inefficiency via standards, certification, and perhaps incentives - primarily because this will align incentives without the government needing to know the business and without the moral hazards politicians controlling companies brings. Think of building codes: builder's incentives now are "build cheap, but safe" - not just "build cheap" like 100 years ago.
2.) Most people can see that constitution has been largely deprecated and is more of a talking point than real power restriction. It doesn't mean we don't keep fighting for the new laws to be defined as open as possible (as you mention).
3.) Very true, but this doesn't automatically mean they should nationalize. There are lesser powers that will accomplish the same goal and more efficiently.
However, it's not a binary decision between the Wild West and nationalization. The scale goes from:
* Standards ("Here's the minimum." - building codes) * Checks ("Ask us if it's okay." - gun background checks) * Certification ("Tell us, and we'll make you more legit." - LEED [non gov't I know]) * Licensure ("You must tell us." - Liquor License) * Incentives ("Do this and we'll help you." - Tax Credits) * Nationalization ("Only we can do it." - Post Office)
You gain coordination of public interests and lose long-term innovation as you go down the list. Looking at how many disasters are handled with WalMart, Home Depot, FedEx having better response times - due to their economic incentives.
I'd propose solving this market inefficiency via standards, certification, and perhaps incentives - primarily because this will align incentives without the government needing to know the business and without the moral hazards politicians controlling companies brings. Think of building codes: builder's incentives now are "build cheap, but safe" - not just "build cheap" like 100 years ago.
2.) Most people can see that constitution has been largely deprecated and is more of a talking point than real power restriction. It doesn't mean we don't keep fighting for the new laws to be defined as open as possible (as you mention).
3.) Very true, but this doesn't automatically mean they should nationalize. There are lesser powers that will accomplish the same goal and more efficiently.