> Maybe your post made you feel better, but next time maybe make a post that improves discourse and maybe leads to a better world (and doesn't alienate someone like me who is leaning to the outcome you desire).

I found myself saying recently that I can no longer respect people who hesitate to vote for a group of people who have done a bad job fixing something and instead vote for the people who broke it.

I have found, over a lot of sad experiences, when people's assumptions become their ideology, those assumptions then become their experiences. Largely, there is no arguing with them and stridency is called for to point out to others the error of their ways. Your call is for respectful discourse and argumentation. That call is seemingly reasonable on its face but is easily weaponized to protect bad faith arguments. It shifts responsibility to prove a negative instead of someone proving the claim. If you reread the post I reacted to, critically, it is a truly nonsense set of talking points masquerading as an argument. I hold no ill will to the poster - its just regurgitation that is presumed to have meaning. "create more options" "figure out who is overpaid" that have no connection to each other besides the underlying ideology that government bad industry good. That isn't an argument - it's an ideology. And you can't argue with ideologies because they aren't argument based.

If we are speaking of argumentation, then evaluating the * basic coherence * and credibility of a claim made is perfectly reasonable. But it isn't my job to argue people out of a position they didn't argue themselves into. That is not a good use of my time, and defending those people isn't a good use of yours. What has value is laying bare, for others who might be misled, just how hollow that non argument is.

Your points about the TSA and DMV are ones I to an extent understand, because they match my own experiences. But if one steps back and looks at evidence they tend to fall apart - because its an ideology not an argument. What matters isn't is the DMV good or bad, its would industry run it better. I have experienced two states with privatized DMVs. Those were categorically the two worst DMV experiences I have had - because they had no staff on hand, no ability to do anything, and they charged me more for the service. I would argue the TSA has worked exactly as intended - create the appearance of doing something and line the pockets of (shocker) industry by buying useless equipment. It is regulatory capture, it is the purest vision of what industry will do if given the opportunity to influence government services - as little as possible for as much money as possible.

The discussion of which is better is a red herring, as you correctly noted. But its one that exists and is viewed as an assumptive way of making things better (industry! run the government like a business!) that is accepted with farcically lacking evidence. Maybe the side suggesting that privatization is better should spend their time teaching government the lessons of industry rather than wasting our time trying to steal from the public.

TL:DR - make an argument, talking points aren't an argument and should not be treated as one just for the sake of making discourse feel nice.