I don't think anyone even read what I actually wrote.
As to your example I literally pointed out 'single points of access' (i.e. the GG bridge) as an cute concern wherein regulation, special interventions need to be made.
That there are some places wherein intervention needs to be made, doesn't in any way help the argument that the broader case holds - your example does not help support the notion that 'tow trucks' in general should be socialized.
(And FYI I think the 'market oriented solution' to bridge clearing probably won't work - but there may be other, smarter solutions such as 'more bridges' etc.)
The notion of 'tow truck socialization' - while interesting fodder for reddit-ish discussion (ideas are always good) - is in practice, completely ridiculous. It's probably one a good example of things that should be the furthest from socialization.
The 'pro socialization' knee-jerk responders chose a really ugly argument to die on, notably there's an absence of any reasonable arguments for how that would even make sense, other than in the OP 'if the government did it, it would be better!' - which is not an argument.
As a matter of pragmatism, you say of the GG-clearing 'it works well' - but does it really though?
Imagine the costs of such an operation: special vehicles, drivers, surveillance, alarms, having to 'move on a dime' means probably 95% 'downtime' where that special truck driver sits there idle, in wait, and likely a lot of special labour conditions because 'someone must be on duty' can't have everyone calling in sick.
By 'it works' you mean to say 'the cars get moved quickly' - and yes, having been a daily Golden Gate commuter myself I'm witness to that, but it doesn't mean that it's in any way 'efficient'. It could be dreadfully expensive, to the point that alternatives should be explored (like more bridges). I don't know - but it could be.
Again the example of 'government liquor stores' is a good corollary. 'They work', superficially. The definitely do - you can buy beer and liquor. To an individual buyer without reference it all seems fine.
But absolutely nowhere outside of Ontario/Quebec/Sweden were alcohol distribution is socialized are people pushing for it - and there's considerably more diversity in choice and better price (and frankly this argument over 'corruption' is moot as I don't see a difference between public/private there).
If government controlled liquor distribution were dismantled in On/Qu/Sk within 10 years it would be absolutely impossible to re-enact because there simply are no benefits to it.
The only people who defend are those 'living within the system', like E. Germans believing they have 'great groceries' only to come to tears when the 'Wall Came Down' and they were exposed to the prodigious bounty of regular supermarkets in the West... and those naive, ideological 'chat board' warriors who support socialized systems even when the own experience speaks directly against it.
Nobody on HN who ca buy a decent bottle of wine for $10 is would support their local government 'taking over the system' so that they can literally have 1/4 the selection, and 2x the prices. Nobody. It's a really weird intellectual asymmetry that needs to be studied frankly.
You can buy better wine in a German supermarket, California kiosk than almost anywhere in Ontario. The French 'Walmart' (Carrefour) has literally 10x the selection of anywhere in Ontario, again, for 1/2 the cost.
A colleague of mine grew up in Poland said that before the fall of the regime, they only had '3 kinds of ice cream': Chocolate, Vanilla and 'Pink' because anything else was 'bourgeois'. That we still have people defending this thinking is pretty crazy. These system exist because of incumbency, the power of local guilds and the people most benefiting from scheme (i.e. execs, staff), just like mercantilist royal suitors acquiring market monopolies from a bygone era before Adam Smith.
The "3 kinds of ice cream in Poland" example runs counter to your argument, because it's actually a case where consumers benefit from choice. Consumers do not generally have choice of who tows them, and the OP article hints at the huge inefficiencies that come with private towing, and extent to which consumers aren't benefitting from "free market" competition in this case.
A gang war between two truck companies is obviously very inefficient, but so too is the extreme day-to-day competition for tows. You're right that the government-run scenario would involve idle capacity, but the OP article describes a situation where there is already an especially wasteful and ridiculous form of over-capacity (multiple drivers racing to the scene of a crash, a waste of fuel and labor capacity). The "surveillance system" you mention is already in place in the private towing example, it's just a wildly inefficient version that lacks centralized dispatch.
Government-run liquor stores are also a perfect counter-example to your point--their whole purpose is to not provide the most convenient consumer-friendly option possible, and instead to reduce easy access to liquor and attempt to rein in some of the negative externalities that come with it. For the record, I'm not a fan of that approach, but in many cases it's an example of government succeeding in what it set out to do, not the reverse.
"The "3 kinds of ice cream in Poland" example runs counter to your argument, because it's actually a case where consumers benefit from choice."
Are you seriously saying that '3 kinds of ice cream' represents 'choice' vis-a-vis the the literally hundreds of kinds of ice-cream that people would otherwise be able to choose? Of different flavours, textures, ingredients, sources?
You're taking a very obvious example of 'lack of choice' and trying to spin it as an example of choice?
The government says 'we can only have 1 type of SUV, 1 type of Truck and 1 type of Sedan' - and this would be 'choice'?
No, that's absurd, I can't really think you meant to actually write that.
As for 'towing' - you're mixing my metaphors here.
The 'Golden Gate' towing situation is an example of 'single point of failure' where there probably needs to be intervention, I was merely explaining how that 'special towing service' they have might very well be extremely inefficient. None of that example really folds over into the 'regular market' for towing'.
So yes - you have indicated that 'towing will be competitive' - but that's literally the artifact of the industry that keeps it efficient. When there is 'overcapacity' it adjusts, likewise 'underapacity' - it adjusts.
Those artifacts of the 'invisible hand of the market' are the literal functions that help us do price discovery and understand 'how much people are willing to pay' for stuff.
Any industry can be taken over by the mafia - more likely than not, it depends on the kinds of people involved in the work. You local drug R&D company is probably not going to be related to the Mafia. The 'Auto Shop' is full of the kinds of people who may 'know someone who knows someone' and since it's small business, local, it's more amenable to problems - but so are many industries.
Fighting the Mafia is no excuse to socialize.
At no point has the OP or yourself really given a good reason for why, systematically, towing should be socialized - again - the GG example is a very special case, not a general one.
Finally, yes, 'Government run liquor stores' were enabled in to help control the distribution of alcohol, so there is a historical social externalization there, but that's a very long gone artifact of history. It hasn't been relevant for 50 years.
In reality, there is no difference between distributional impact of social behaviour in Alberta / BC / California (open sales) or Quebec / Ontario / Sweden (Government sales). So it's not an argument, just a historical artefact.
The government is materially 'not succeeding' in 2020 to do anything with respect to social policy whereas the other social cost: expensive alcohol and lack of choice, is a material cost.
There's no reason for them to exist, they exist because of incumbency and the guild of people involve who benefit from it over others.
As to your example I literally pointed out 'single points of access' (i.e. the GG bridge) as an cute concern wherein regulation, special interventions need to be made.
That there are some places wherein intervention needs to be made, doesn't in any way help the argument that the broader case holds - your example does not help support the notion that 'tow trucks' in general should be socialized.
(And FYI I think the 'market oriented solution' to bridge clearing probably won't work - but there may be other, smarter solutions such as 'more bridges' etc.)
The notion of 'tow truck socialization' - while interesting fodder for reddit-ish discussion (ideas are always good) - is in practice, completely ridiculous. It's probably one a good example of things that should be the furthest from socialization.
The 'pro socialization' knee-jerk responders chose a really ugly argument to die on, notably there's an absence of any reasonable arguments for how that would even make sense, other than in the OP 'if the government did it, it would be better!' - which is not an argument.
As a matter of pragmatism, you say of the GG-clearing 'it works well' - but does it really though?
Imagine the costs of such an operation: special vehicles, drivers, surveillance, alarms, having to 'move on a dime' means probably 95% 'downtime' where that special truck driver sits there idle, in wait, and likely a lot of special labour conditions because 'someone must be on duty' can't have everyone calling in sick.
By 'it works' you mean to say 'the cars get moved quickly' - and yes, having been a daily Golden Gate commuter myself I'm witness to that, but it doesn't mean that it's in any way 'efficient'. It could be dreadfully expensive, to the point that alternatives should be explored (like more bridges). I don't know - but it could be.
Again the example of 'government liquor stores' is a good corollary. 'They work', superficially. The definitely do - you can buy beer and liquor. To an individual buyer without reference it all seems fine.
But absolutely nowhere outside of Ontario/Quebec/Sweden were alcohol distribution is socialized are people pushing for it - and there's considerably more diversity in choice and better price (and frankly this argument over 'corruption' is moot as I don't see a difference between public/private there).
If government controlled liquor distribution were dismantled in On/Qu/Sk within 10 years it would be absolutely impossible to re-enact because there simply are no benefits to it.
The only people who defend are those 'living within the system', like E. Germans believing they have 'great groceries' only to come to tears when the 'Wall Came Down' and they were exposed to the prodigious bounty of regular supermarkets in the West... and those naive, ideological 'chat board' warriors who support socialized systems even when the own experience speaks directly against it.
Nobody on HN who ca buy a decent bottle of wine for $10 is would support their local government 'taking over the system' so that they can literally have 1/4 the selection, and 2x the prices. Nobody. It's a really weird intellectual asymmetry that needs to be studied frankly.
You can buy better wine in a German supermarket, California kiosk than almost anywhere in Ontario. The French 'Walmart' (Carrefour) has literally 10x the selection of anywhere in Ontario, again, for 1/2 the cost.
A colleague of mine grew up in Poland said that before the fall of the regime, they only had '3 kinds of ice cream': Chocolate, Vanilla and 'Pink' because anything else was 'bourgeois'. That we still have people defending this thinking is pretty crazy. These system exist because of incumbency, the power of local guilds and the people most benefiting from scheme (i.e. execs, staff), just like mercantilist royal suitors acquiring market monopolies from a bygone era before Adam Smith.