> I think the advantage of an establishment like McDonalds over a government run community center is that McDonalds is a business that has a clear purpose.

The trade-off being that establishments like McDonalds adversely affect the eating habits of people starting at a young age. The trade-off for any business as a community center, is that they must profit from the people, irregardless of the adverse effects. Facebook is another example.

> People turn their noses up at fast food restaurants, but they are ubiquitous and there are no political arguments over how to fund them.

The success of government welfare efforts in a democracy are culturally dependent. Social Darwinism is encoded into the DNA of American society. So people with privilege will often veto the establishment of social goods, as it is regarded as an unnecessary expense - maybe it means higher taxation, maybe it affects their land value, etc. In other countries, libraries, parks, community centers, galleries, campgrounds, etc. get adequate funding from the government, and with consent of the people.

So it's not so much that the free market provides the best possible outcome, it's more that the culture has constrained the best social outcome to places that increase the net caloric intake of the population, while decreasing their health outcomes. A lack of a public health system means the government is not incentivized to tackle these adverse health outcomes either.

in LA (and surrounding cities), we have an amazing system of recreational/community/senior centers that are used by all classes of people. sure, the (wealthier) west side has fancier activites (e.g., tennis) and generally larger/nicer facilies, but everyone has equal access to all of them. i've both played rec basketball (for a fee) and volunteered as a youth basketball coach at them.

the centers are run almost entrepreneurially, with a blend of public funding (based on service metrics) and direct revenue (by charging for activities). it works great.

> they are ubiquitous and there are no political arguments over how to fund them

> we can be confident that the free market will keep McDonalds

So part of your argument against government-run centers is that... government-run centers are unreliable because of people against them?

More like a certain kind of people. More likely those who have the time to attend city council meetings and consistently vote in elections. The kind of people who can afford to.

The business on the other hand, does not suffer at the hands of a poorly designed political system.

The dirt poor people who gather at McDonalds have zero political power, so the local government will never fund a space for them.