The Obamacare exchange website was actually the work of private industry.
Of course. The point is these are Public Contracts.
I once posted a threat about a bus manufacturer that was sued by the city of New York. I'll summarize the article. In short, the author was making the argument that the decade long war has helped destroy the competitiveness of US manufacturing. The reason why, is because the Pentagon awards US firms such great public contracts that there's no reason to remain competitive. And as the rest of the world (mainly Germany and Japan) have had to work for their meal, US manufacturers haven't. The example he provided was a company that makes buses for the Pentagon. They wanted to grow their business so they bid on the contract to make New York city buses and won. The delivered buses started breaking down within 12 weeks. 12 WEEKS. They were made THAT shitty. The people running the company was shocked this wasn't considered quality product - given they sell the same buses to the Pentagon.
This is what happens when there's no free market competition. And it's the reason why healthcare in the USA is so damn expensive and so crap. Could the State take total control of healthcare, bring down prices and increase services - and even do so for "free" (actually no, but you get the point)? Yes we could have hospitals where anyone at anytime can go in and be given access to any and every specialist and medical devise and test. AND over time, you'll find (just like this bus company) that the quality will become utterly crap and soon basic services will not be able to be provided. The real world places limits on services and goods. It's a simple fact of existence. The free-market is the best way to ensure those goods and services are provided to the most people. I know a thing or two about the healthcare industry, I think most people would be pretty unhappy if they truly understood how the system functions.
By the way, Michael, how can there be rule of law without the threat of force? Or property rights? Or a trustworthy currency? Hell, you can't even ensure a free market without it.
These are good questions.
1) When you walk into a shopping mall, you agree to an unwritten contract that you will not steal. If you do steal, mall police can arrest you. So, it's not that there's no 'threat of force' but that there's no 'initiation of force'. IOWs, if you're minding your own business, in your home, on your property, no one can arrest you.
2) Property rights. This is an area worth having a debate over. But, we can all agree we own our bodies.
3) Currency. With currency competition, you would decide which currencies you'd like to use. For example, if you chose to use gold, you can be pretty sure the price won't fluctuate against most commodities given it's relatively stable. Could a massive gold deposit be found somewhere? Sure. It'd probably be wise to use multiple types of currency. I mean, you don't really want to carry gold around (although you could use a gold-backed visa card). Money is just like anything else you buy and sell. It's price is interest. Thus, when you go to a bank, if the bank is giving you a good interest rate for your money (be it whatever it is) then you know that this money has a high value because the bank wants some of it from you. If it has a low interest rate - then it's not worth as much. It really doesn't matter if it's paper, electronic, metal - whatever. People have used seashells as money. Silk. All sorts of things can work as money. The point here is, in free-market, people can decide for themselves what they want to use. Even now, you may have an option in your bank, to place some of your money in a different currency (if you sell it and make a profit, this is called a carry trade). IMO over time, banks will become obsolete. Maybe in our own lifetimes?
4) Most international trade occurs without threat of force. Something that's more powerful than threat of force, is reputation. People and Companies are extremely protective of their reputation. AND in order to ensure their good name, they
voluntarily agree to abide by the arbitration of a court that has NO ability to use force to enforce it's decision. We're talking about trillions of dollars a year worth of trade is done this way. eBay is another example of trade conducted internationally without use of force.
Lastly, as I have previously stated, raising children peacefully and to think logically would go a long ways to correcting a number of the ills in the markets/society. Further, the role of education has shifted. As it is now, most schools just pump students out like cogs - except there are no factories for them to work in. A really great growth industry IMO would be developing a curriculum with 'public' sporting schools (private would be better) combined with home or alternative education (some schooling done on-line, some in small groups - but all of it tailored to the child). In this way children would get an education suited to them and not be treated like a number. Further, studies have shown that the actual structure of public school is conducive towards creating bullying. People think the public schooling 'socializes' children - but the evidence suggests exactly the opposite is true. Children are learning NOT to be social. But to be bullies. I think anyone objectively measuring public schooling would find it to be a complete structural failure. It makes no sense to move children through 'grades' based on age and not amplitude (in only makes sense in a cog-like machine way - exactly what you'd expect from anything run by the public). Suddenly, when the 'magic' age of 17 occurs - students move off to University and this age-grade dichotomy totally disappears and they find themselves in classes with grandparents even. But, the public WANTS public school - not because of education - but because it can then act as a babysitter + parents don't have to waste their time with their children's education. It's so bad now, many parents don't even bother teaching their children how to read! Which I find basis for neglect. Lastly is the notion you can place a baby human into the care of rotating strangers from 6 weeks old to 4 years old. Studies show that children who do not have a stable parent or adult in their life during this time period fail to develop social skills properly and develop depression and anxiety disorders more frequently. Think about all the children being put on anit-depressants, even though there are NO good studies of how these drugs effect the developing human brain. Further research has suggested that while children bond closest to their mothers, they learn to act morally and compassionately from their fathers. Think about all the single mothers out there and all the children who never form a close bond with their fathers. The measured incidence of sociopathy in society has doubled over the last 15 years. I'm sure the reasons can partially be found in the above text.
I said I was in a hurry! 
