George Will on rationality, principles, and reality.

[ppw00]

Jan ... are you an Objectivist?

[JohnAdamCulligan]

"[W]e have known the only possible combination that produces abundance is Capitalism and Free Markets." Read "Bad Samaritans" by Ha-Joon Chang; you'll find the empirical reality is not as this statement suggests.

[waketheoblivious]

Ever since Adam Smith introduced Classical Economic Theory and the Laws of Supply & Demand we have known the only possible combination that produces abundance is Capitalism and Free Markets. The same self interest that generates abundance in a Free Market guarantys Scarcity and Shortages in Controlled Market economies (Socialist/Communist). If it can not be made to work in theory, then how is it supposed to work in reality, as an applied but doomed disaster? LAWS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND not MAYBE'S

[glhmedic]

What a douchebag

[beesleeper]

That anyone actually listens to George Will on anything is truly amazing. All those crummy books. All that nonsense. America should be deeply, deeply ashamed.

[ForkCheck]

Interesting conversation. I would be interested in what Will considers a contradiction to be.

[featheon]

Hmm... this George Will fellow seems to grasp the contingency and social constructedness of rationalism while the interviewer believes in Objectivist fallacies about facts (an outmodded positivist view of science we might say). Yet Will doesn't attack him on this point specifically.

[waketheoblivious]

@featheon

The Principle of Self Interest helped determine the Laws of Supply & Demand. Self Interest is our perceived or anticipated psychological or material benefit we expect to gain. What is a choice we can choose that is NOT subject to Self-Interest i.e. do NOT receive a psychological or material benefit? Ayn Rand, qualifying the term self-interest as rational or irrational self interest, is pathetic ignorance. Self Interest, dictates all human choice or the Laws of Supply & Demand, fail

[KenMacMillan]

We need George Will for president!

[brdajo365]

@SSgtParmer ha. he did nothing of the sort. George Will made helfeld look like a child--and not a particularly bright child.

[brdajo365]

The interviewer reminds me of Otto from the movie A FISH CALLED WANDA.

[ReX342]

@SamsSpaghetti Seeing how in other videos he claims we have a leninist system, I suppose Lenin. Pretty sure Lenon was into concepts such as love, peace and understanding (on an emotional, not a rational level).

[rubbersole79]

George Will thinks he is an intellectual mountain of a man, and he's right.

[owl235]

That was a very bad interviewer. An interview is supposed to be about the subject's views, not the interviewer's views. The interviewer also came off as childishly simple and naive, thinking that he can convince socialists by talking to them. The only things he wanted to discuss were trivialities, such as "is rationality better than irrationality?" Duh. If I had George Will in a room, I wouldn't waste time asking him baby-level questions.

[DrTodd13]

A rational consideration of the is/ought problem will reveal that all the facts in the world cannot dispense any wisdom to guide a single human action. Is it rational to believe that humans are somehow important? Where does this magical importance come from? The only way to get an "ought" is to start with at least one premise accepted completely on faith and then derive other "oughts" from that. On what basis does one legitimately claim that their first premise is better than anyone else's?

[janhelfeld]

@DrTodd13 Do you think there isn't anything that is objectively bad?

[DrTodd13]

@janhelfeld How many birds are in flight this instant? There is an objective, exact answer to that question and at the same time, this answer is beyond human capabilities. Likewise, even if objective morality exists, it would still be impossible for humans to know with certainty they have discovered it. There is no true "knowing." There is only belief and I personally believe that there is an objective morality but that belief is ultimately based on nothing so why disdain those who disagree.

[janhelfeld]

@DrTodd13 you say - "I personally believe that there is an objective morality but that belief is ultimately based on nothing". Why do you believe it, if it is based on nothing? Do you intentionally adhere to baseless and irrational beliefs?

[DrTodd13]

@janhelfeld If you personally think that you know anything, then you too adhere to baseless beliefs. Everyone has baseless beliefs as their foundation. Why? So they can get through day. If you didn't believe your senses were giving you accurate information about reality then how would you function? So as not to starve, people have to assume the consistency/constancy of our reality but you can't prove it because you'd have to use your senses to do it and that begs the question.

[janhelfeld]

@DrTodd13 Is this (your comment) also baseless or do you claim it is true ? SINCE you say you know nothing, why should I pay attention to what you say?

[DrTodd13]

@janhelfeld IMO, everything is ultimately baseless, including this stmt. However, if we accept the same axioms then effective communication is possible. Then, you may want to pay attention if I can convince you using your own logic of the likely truth of pyrrhonism/fallibilism. I think our shared logic leads to the belief that all solutions to the regress and is/ought problem require baseless belief. Therefore, humility. There's no basis to disagree with someone who doesn't accept your axioms.

[janhelfeld]

@DrTodd13 You claim you can not know the truth but then you say this is true, that is true, on and on.

You are contradicting your self and therefore mistaken. Is /ought "obstacle" is nonsense.To get out of this trap and stop contradicting yourself read Objectivist Ethics -Ayn Rand.

[DrTodd13]

@janhelfeld I have not said I "know" anything. All my stmts are my opinion. Beliefs for me can never rise to the level of knowledge which I would reserve for something that cannot possibly be in error. Rand didn't even attempt to solve the is/ought problem. Her use of "ethics" is not about ought in a moral (common usage) sense but about fulfilling human nature. What is missing is the stmt that this fulfillment is objectively good. See mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1­_4.pdf

[janhelfeld]

@DrTodd13 Do you "know" if 2+2=4? Do you know if you have a head on your shoulders?

[DrTodd13]

@janhelfeld I suggest a possibility. "I" is a simulation on an alien computer providing the illusion of reality. Given exponential growth in computing power, we can extrapolate that in a short time (cosmic scales) we'll all have the ability to run such simulations. The # of simulated people will far exceed the # of real people. Therefore, one could argue it is more likely we are simulations than not. Do simulations have heads? I perceive I have a head but you can't prove perception sees reality.

[janhelfeld]

@DrTodd13 So you think maybe you don,t have a head? Do you know what a stolen concept is? All your arguments are based on stolen concepts and thus contradictory.Read Objectivist Epistemology.

[DrTodd13]

@janhelfeld Blah blah. You're telling me to read stuff I've read a long time ago and rejected and not providing any arguments of your own which shows the weakness of your position. Look, if we think our perception is reality and then form the concept illusion (as differentiated from perceived reality, say by watching a magic show) then I see no misuse of that concept to question whether our perception is an illusion that veils an unknowable true reality. Illusion within illusion.

[DrTodd13]

@janhelfeld See h t t p : // us.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.h­tml. The mathematical "proof" of 2+2=4 uses 2452 sub-theorems. Plus, these theorems are still based on a number of axioms which you either accept as self-evident or you don't. Do these seem self-evident to me? Yes. Do I believe 2+2=4? Yes. Can I prove that something that "seems self-evident to me (or the smartest person on earth)" is true without possibility of error? No. Therefore, I only believe 2+2=4 but don't know it.

[janhelfeld]

@DrTodd13 So you think maybe 2+2 does not equal 4 ,right?

[DrTodd13]

@janhelfeld Do you claim to know things that you can't prove? Do you acknowledge that for the most part there is nothing self-contradictory about denying the truth of most of the 20+ axioms used to prove 2+2? If so, then you can't claim to know that 2+2=4 with 100% certainty when most of the axioms you accept with no proof. I'd suggest you read a book called "The Loss of Certainty" about how mathematicians tried to put math on an unshakable foundation only to find that they couldn't.

[trounds2]

@DrTodd13 It is a recent that some mathematicians are claiming that math is defined only by certain axioms. This sort of nonsense came from the stupidity that a math proof is elegant. Here is 'proof' of the nonsense: Concerning 'the 20+ axioms used to prove 2+2: don't use axioms, get 2 apples, and add another 2 apples. How many are there? In the English language we call that number four. Real math uses theorems, equations, and measurements, not axioms. Math gives answers. Axioms give arguments.

[janhelfeld]

@DrTodd13 You claim you can not know the truth but then you say this is true, that is true, on and on.

You are contradicting your self and therefore mistaken. Is /ought "obstacle" is nonsense.To get out of this trap and stop contradicting yourself read Objectivist Ethics -Ayn Rand.

[Justwannalogon]

There are no contradictions. George Will is not rational. :) Probably so he can keep believing in God.

[NextExiter]

@Justwannalogon George Will is known to be agnostic.

[Justwannalogon]

@NextExiter That makes sense as well. Agnostics often come off as rational people that refuse to let go. :)

[spalmer718]

Jan, I've been watching several of your interviews and Will, so far, has been the only person who can, not only make good points and fair arguments but also, remain cordial and polite in the process. He also made an attempt to answer your questions instead of evading them or spouting the same talking points ad nauseum.

[1nrasmuss]

George Will is brilliant and well thought out in his argument, Helfeld seems befuddled and senseless. It is funny that Henfeld is trying to argue logic illogically. This makes Henfeld look foolish.

[djnross]

It's often not a prudent quest to debate George Will when one---as does Helfeld here----seems to have taken all his cues from cursory perusal of Logic Principles For Beginner's thumbed-thru as bathroom companion.He attempts a callow judo-toss,devoid however,of the requisite leverage to trip Will.

[BloggerMusicMan]

This was a very entertaining philosophical debate, thanks for posting this up.

[TeddyLeper]

Good intellectual exchange on average.

[DermochelysCoriacea]

"You are asserting illogically that contradiction and logic are incompatible." This is great. See paraconsistent logic, namely dialetheism. I admire George Will's poise, but I would deck this annoying bastard so hard.

[DermochelysCoriacea]

Who is this tool George Will is debating? I cringe listening to and watching him. I used to be like that. Concerning style, George Will has it, his interlocutor doesn't. Look how worked up he's getting.

[reverbphantom]

A painful interview. George Will manages to shine despite some of the silly questions.

[fatcat2939]

Go Spex.

Thank rationality for the internt.

[fatcat2939]

never trust a man with facial hair in this video.

[Hardwyck]

@fatcat2939

Should you trust a man in a wig?

[fatcat2939]

@Hardwyck

Yes

[cirosuperiore]

helfeld is such an idiot...he is the worst interviewer . that's the problem with someone who knows a little bit too much...

trying reading Eric Voegelin for some great insight...George Will is NOT an intellectual, just a media commentator...he sounds educated but he really isn't.

[jasonc32amg]

Great chat Borat.

[grantsinmypants2]

Wow, I never realized what a light weight and an asshole George Will truly is. And such touchy vanity too!

No wonder the conservatives are completely impotent to oppose socialism in all it's forms.

[59Gretsch]

@grantsinmypants2 Are you even in touch with reality to question the potency of conservatives?

Hint: run to the nearest news stand and read whats going on in the country right now.

[grantsinmypants2]

I don't understand your point.

[nick2727nick]

George is Brilliant. He uses this this called common sense, most liberals arent sure what this is.

[grantsinmypants2]

Will is essentially a liberal. Despite his political differences, he shares their ethical and epistemological view point.

[nick2727nick]

Im sorry, i just dont see how you can say he is a liberal? I was at a symposium last week when he spoke......Everything he stands for is conservative. Type "dependency agenda" in youtube. He has 9 videos that make up his views. We had the same lecture as this one you see at Princeton.

[grantsinmypants2]

A free society (ie: "conservative politics") depends upon an ethic of unapologetic, consistent selfishness and the validity of reason. Not altruism and subjectivism - and certainly not on wishy-washy terms like "common sense."

[nick2727nick]

Ok, sorry for the loose word......... my point being, he is anti government, pro capitalism, anti reformed healthcare, the list goes on. He is as far Republican as it gets. I love his ideals! His best idea...get rid of the postal service and have walmart do it. Postal service 22 billion a year loss for the next 20 years. Taxpayers cost.

[TexasDawg3]

Jan Helfeld is a clown. He has one talking point that he just continues on with no matter what the response or circumstances. Ideology as a substitute for having to think.

[janhelfeld]

What is the talking point I use in this interview and every other interview?

[TulaneGator]

The interviewer is a complete douche who thinks it's all about him. You come across as a total loser.

[rock90123]

Will ends up on the side of Marx and Hegel claiming that reality itself is contradictory."

and aristotle, Rousseau, etc...

this guy is such a fraud. an idiot

[TexasDawg3]

@rock90123

Well put.

[epilp88]

Uh, I don't see why you introduce Aristotle. Aristotle does not claim reality is contradictory, as far as I'm aware. Rousseau, fine.

[pbeaird]

Here is a man so bedazzled by his head swimming in the sea of a multitude of ideas of every variety that he can't commit himself to reality being real, truth being true and some views being false. Holding frrm convictions, whatever their source, is the source of danger, in his view. If so, then truth can never convince a man and tell him to stand tall. Communism was murderous bec it failed to think far enough to see the value of individual lives. It was the error that masws murdered men.

[W2n1dowsx]

This person is an example of what is wrong with the world. He is perverse. He is dishonest. He is arrogant. He needs to listen. He does not listen. He wants to make points...it is a competetion for him not a discussion.

[heyheymonkees]

It's funny when he says, its not about contradictions being true, its about them being real. I wish he could have explained the difference.

re⋅al1 [ree-uhl, reel] Show IPA

Use real in a Sentence

adjective

1.true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: the real reason for an act.

2.existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious: a story taken from real life.

[soundmoneyfan]

Oh Jan, he tried hard. one of the few voices of logic in our age of folly. if only they had paper money and tv in the dark ages, it would look a lot like today! :)

[janhelfeld]

There is nothing irrational about art albeit some art comes from irrational minds.

[haveabeer123]

I think George Will kicked Jan´s ass on this one... Jan sees the world as black and white and that´s wrong...

[TheMikeBuck]

List of Gay Republicans: Lindsey Graham(R-SC) Condi Rice(R) Frank Luntz(R) Larry Craig(R-ID) Jim Guckert(Jeff Gannon) Ken Mehlman(R) Armstrong Williams Karl Rove Charlie Crist(R-FL) Ted Haggard Mitch McConnell Mark Foley(R-FL) Ed Schrock(R-VA) Matt Drudge

[heyheymonkees]

Great post, but all of these guys are actually liberals in disguise.

[fuzzywzhe]

Haha. I got on for Jan here.

All systems are contradictory. This has been proven.

I'll show a trivial example. In a set of numbers from -infinity to +infinity, is there a solution for all the values of this equation? X*X=Y?

A possible solution is X=2, and Y=4. What if, however, Y = -4?

It's been shown that all logical systems, are contradictory. Forgot who proved it, but it was India's best mathematician, in the late 1980s.

[Visfen]

Yes, two solution for ever value of Y

The idea that there are inherit contradictions in logic only work if we doesn't account for these contradiction, but the mere fact that we explain them changes that

Like for instance, I can say that lightning hit at two different times depending on the distance I am from the lighting as the speed of light takes time to travel and I would be right in both instances, depending on my position.Contradictions are explained by a position outside the system

[fuzzywzhe]

Is it rational to believe in god?

[avalonwitch]

I'll give one example when it's better to be non-rational--Art. Another example is the spiritual feeling we have when we are in a beautiful place in nature. When we see something that we perceive as beautiful (beauty is in the eye of the beholder) we are filled with emotion--often awe. In other words, our experience of beauty and the act of creating it lives in the world of the non-rational.

[WarVideo]

What makes art non-rational?

And you gave having "a spiritual feeling" as an example of being non rational. Thats not an example, just because you have some stupid mystical ideas associated to being out in nature does not make it better. And why would admiring beauty be non rational, so if i filled my house with ugly things, would that be rational?

[heyheymonkees]

there is no such world. there is only real and imaginary.

[SuperAtheist]

there's a difference between being rational and rationalizing one's actions.

[dannidandannikins]

Aristotle, the man who worked out the law of Identity, that A=A. That is the fundamental point of logic, a thing cannot be not itself, a contradiction is not possible. George Will is ignorant on this basic point of philosophy and is consequently not worth listening to.

[ndes0532]

jan ended an interview before the politician did? that's rare

[ALittleBitPregnant]

It sounds like George Will was uncomfortable speaking with someone who is his intellectual superior by playing a game of one-upmanship. He also seems to no longer understand the moral superiority of freedom, perhaps he has been hanging out with those Washington liberals too much.

[janhelfeld]

Why? Will thought the interview was fun. He was not annoyed.

[lukeev]

Another great video Jan. Keep up the great work.

[hillerm]

This interviewer is really annoying.

[Nielsio]

It's funny how he says that some who can't persuade another will resort to violence; because that's precisely what socialism does, which is what he appears to be in support of.

[wait887]

Let's not put all the blame on socialism. Could we not conclude that it is in fact statism that fuels the violence all over the world. Just count up all the bodies that every government in the world have created. They would pile up to the sky.

[Nielsio]

The state is the means through which socialism is applied. So we're talking about the same thing.

[lukeev]

Indeed. Estimates say approx. 300 million by democide in the previous century alone, not including major wars.

[mellowtribe]

Ever wonder why people like this are never found in any school? Think about the "teachers" you had in publik edjucashun....man we were ripped off at the public babysitting skool sytem!

[MatteNoob]

exactly what I thought when I saw this intellectual discussion between these fine men..

If we had people like this, we'd be in much better shape.

It also appears that your babysitters didn't teach you how to spell. Conform NOW! :)

[pudgenet]

George Will is right on here. We have had many horrors committed in the name of "rationality." He is not saying we shouldn't be rational, he is saying rationality is not the point.

The Socratic technique works with some people, but not with people who are already careful thinkers, as Will is.

Jan, you are greatly mistaken that you can perusade any intelligent and decent person open to reason. People do not work that way. (But it's fun to try!)

[slar72]

Acting in the name of "rationality" and acting rationally are not the same thing.

[pudgenet]

Exactly.

[harryogre]

Notice the stark difference in how an honest man like George Will reacts to disagreement in this video

Compare that to how Stephanopoulis reacts on the other video. Or how scum-bag politicians react on other videos

Notice Mr. Will doesn't charge out of the room, resort to curses, forcibly steal the tape, or threaten to confiscate equipment

So Mr. Will is ultimately wrong but remains an honorable gentleman

Well done Mr. Helfeld

I have enjoyed every one of your videos that I have viewed

[mellowtribe]

Ultimately wrong? oh of course ...let me guess you voted for Obama? neo-leftist? Just wondering. Look up Hillary Clinton on NAFTA. She is a Neo-leftist you might enjoy as she lies to the camara.

[harryogre]

mellowtribe wow

you couldn't be more wrong or more delusional.

Either you watched a different video than I did or you hit "Reply" to the wrong comment, or you're just a jackass.

Either way, you miss the point entirely.

I can't conceive of how you could come to such a completely idiotic conclusion.

Are you a drug user?

Maybe that's your problem.

Dry out for a few weeks. Maybe you will be able to think.

[tomthefunky]

George Will is America's Genius. I love him and I'd take a bullet for him.

[bwelkk]

"So for you, is it the same to say yes as it is to say no?"

"No."

"Does that mean yes?"

Hahaha, quick wit, nicely done.

[radiofriendly]

This was fun! - Finally, you talk to someone closer to your intelectual level.

[mailer666]

George Will.  Definitely deserving of his Pulitzer level achievements.

It's a shame you don't see and hear more discussion like this on TV and radio and from within politics.

[Chloe0418]

7:13 - lol!

[xelenty]

Lenin was a rationalist?... lol

[elbuggo]

Very good

[billyjoeallen]

Politics is the art of persuading enough people to agree with you that you can forcibly impose your will on those who dont. There is no such thing as a political solution, because politics are the problem.

[amz2424]

In order to get to that conclusion, you would have to know what politics is and where politics meets it ends. Politics is a process in which people come together to make choices. Obviously, no two people are alike therefor decisions must be reached that will benefit the parties involved. It can be forcefull, but it is up to the reciver to recieve the force. Politics are not the problem, instead it is the means of politics that are, which is the people involved.

[billyjoeallen]

The social contract is not valid. Choice between mugger A and mugger B is no real choice. How many elections has your one vote decided? none. You are foolish to think that democracy does anything more but give a cloak of legitimacy to an unjust, immoral system.

[dreamsofredspring]

The only alternative to politics is war.

[billyjoeallen]

"war is the continuation of politics by other means"- Karl Von Clausewitz

The alternative to politics is anarchocapitalism.

[dreamsofredspring]

War is a failure of politics.

"The alternative to politics is anarchocapitalism"

What is to ensure the respect of contracts in such a system?

[billyjoeallen]

The short answer is credit ratings. The concept can be expanded to include most contractual situations.

[dreamsofredspring]

You are idealistically assuming that humans will always act rationally and act with their longterm interest in mind.

[billyjoeallen]

Not at all. Many people have poor credit ratings precisely because the DON'T act with their long term best interest in mind. But, with ratings history for contracts, we will be able to avoid doing business with them until they clean up their act. Credit ratings work. Most of our economy is based on them already. Contract integrity ratings use the same principle. It doesn't have to be perfect to be substantially better than the current system.

[dreamsofredspring]

To establish a credit ratings system you will need a bureaucracy.

[overmind25]

And what is the problem of a bureaucracy if it is a voluntary agency?

[dreamsofredspring]

I am not against bureaucracy per se, I was arguing with that other guy who's in favor of anarco-capitalism. I don't know what you mean by "voluntary agency" by the way.

[overmind25]

Where it does not extract funds by initiating aggressive force.

[dreamsofredspring]

No system can function without a bureaucracy with the ability to extract funds through force. Otherwise no disputes could be settled.

[overmind25]

And what gives you that idea? A defense or so called justice system is a service that people desire. It doesn't have to be funded through force. There are numerous models put forth about these ideas. One of them I would suggest if you are truly interested in a non violent way of funding these types of services is DROs or Defense Resolution Organizations.

[dreamsofredspring]

"And what gives you that idea? A defense or so called justice system is a service that people desire. It doesn't have to be funded through force"

But that is social contract you speak of there. You can defend the welfare state on the same grounds, viz. the rich don't mind paying some proportion of their wealth for redistribution to keep the poor from breaking down their doors.

[overmind25]

There is no social contract. That is a myth as much as any religion. If the so called rich really fear that (since many get rich from state theft) then they can pay for many of the poor's protection. You cannot defend the state whether it be welfare or warfare unless you support imperialism and violence.

[dreamsofredspring]

I was not judging the social contract, I just said that the definition of "a defense or so called justice system" that you gave amounts to one.

[overmind25]

A social contract is not an idea that is based on one or more individuals making a voluntary agreement with one or more individuals. It is like original sin. You being born is some random area automatically means you owe something to other people.

[dreamsofredspring]

"A social contract is not an idea that is based on one or more individuals making a voluntary agreement with one or more individuals"

I never claimed it was, but neither is your definition of a defense system, since that system would necessarily also affect those who don't want to be affected, not least of which are the criminals themselves.

[overmind25]

Yes the criminals would be summoned but it is after they have committed a crime. Of course someone that assaults another through aggression will more than likely not want to be held accountable however he/she committed the aggression.

[billyjoeallen]

"No system can function without a bureaucracy with the ability to extract funds through force. Otherwise no disputes could be settled."

That's simply not true. Disputes are settled all the time without force or even the threat of force. They are settle by using the threat of not doing any more business with the other party to the dispute.

[timbosforporn]

I don't really see whats wrong with anarco-capatilsim as you call it. I see people all the time start and run businesses without any interference from the govt whatsoever and they are doing nothing wrong or immoral. I don't see why people seem to want to regulate some aspect of our lives such as commerce when they don't want to regulate others.

[dreamsofredspring]

Because once those businesses are open, history shows if government doesn't protect it for money, someone else will. And their methods might be even more nasty.

[timbosforporn]

Thats never been my experience with businesses and if we use the "if govt doesn't regulate them then they will screw us over" argument then we can apply that to everything else should be regulated as well. We can get "screwed over" by our church, our family, our friends, our neighbors, and etc. Yet noone ever feels a need for government to regulate or control those aspects of our lives in order to protect us from possible negative fallout that can occur.

[dreamsofredspring]

What I was talking about is protection of business environment. You take it for granted you can open a business and grow it because you're protected by a strong state. Without it, you will have malevolent interests coming after you the minute they sniff out profit. And you will have no choice but to seek protection from some organization, and if it's not the state then it will have to be some unregulated mafia-like structure.

[timbosforporn]

Are you saying that govt is needed in order to provide some kind of social order and structure so we don't have mad-max thunderdome type situation? If that is what you are saying then I agree. We need some laws just so we don't have descend into a third world country ran by drug lords.

[dreamsofredspring]

Then that's not anarco-capitalism.

[timbosforporn]

Yes, I'm against anarchy in general as well. In most places where there is no govt it turns into a coountry ran by warlords.

[billyjoeallen]

Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union are the three existing credit rating companies and all are private, for profit companies.

We obviously don't need a government to provide this type of service.