Not Everything Should Be Run Like a Business

     After a recent expose by Mother Jones on corruption, abuses, and waste in privately run federal prisons, the DOJ announced they’ll end privately run federal prisons.  This is amazing, but only the first of many steps to end the cycle of for-profit, mass incarceration in this country.

     It’s also, I hope, the first wake up call toward the total realization that not everything should be run like a business.  This is one of the most pervasive and successful myths that the neoliberal agenda has managed to bake into public consciousness.  You see it when people say about politicians (*cough* Trump *cough*), “He’s a great business man so I think he’ll really be able to clean up Washington.”  This belief is born out in the numbers.  In 2012, of the 539 members of Congress, 209 of those were businessmen and women.

     Let’s ignore the fact that businessmen demonstrably make bad presidents.  Wouldn’t it logically make sense that the words “government” and “business” are two different words for a reason?  If government was meant to be a business, wouldn’t we just call it business?  (Okay, let’s also ignore the fact that the secondary definition of “corporation” directly has to do with government).  Usually, we associate operating “like a business” with balancing the books and aiming for a profit.

     In order to assess whether the government should be run like a business, we have to address the philosophical question around what a government is “for” which is a weightier topic than can be covered here in its entirety.  But let’s assume at a minimum the government’s job is to create and maintain public infrastructure and perhaps to regulate modest public safety concerns (driving laws, sewage disposal, etc.).  That seems a rather conservative view on what the government should be doing.  The argument can easily be made that these services should be provided at cost to the public.  They’re the one’s paying for it through their taxes, after all.  Why would it suit their interest to have their taxes fund a surplus in this manner?  There’s good evidence that if the government makes a profit (runs a surplus) that the private sector is pushed into deficit and debt.  

     We might apply similar logic to mass transit.  If the benefits of mass transit include relieving traffic congestion, lowering environmental impact, mobilizing lower income workforce, etc., then wouldn’t it make sense to offer that resource at cost to encourage its use?  Particularly since mass transit, at least in this country, is not likely to be offered by free market enterprise.

     If the purpose of a prison (again, this might hinge on a philosophical debate) is either to rehabilitate an offender or conversely to punish him for his crimes, thereby serving the public interest, then where does the profit motive fit into that equation?  For those who might argue the private sector can deliver a more effective solution cheaper, please refer to the articles listed at the start of this post.  You’ll see that these companies’ profits come by cutting psychiatric care for inmates, feeding them near starvation diets, cutting staff so that guards are at greater risk.  Does that sound like a more effective or humane solution?

     There’s a strong argument that policies and services meant to serve the public good should be owned and operated by the public.  This way they can be steered to ensure they’re serving the public interest.  Hopefully, the next time we’re debating education, health care, regulatory governance, or any host of other public interest topics we can consider them in this way: not everything should be run like a business.