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.