I'm not sure it is all that bad. I think if most "public" services were
provided by a free enterprise system, then we'd get a lot more in
aggregate for our money.

This can only be true where there is free competition and where the value is
measurable (if you die without healthcare, then its hard to measure its
value). Also, if the government must have the weather already (which it
must) then it is likely efficient for us all to have them dissemanate it.
How many of the private weather firms have there own satellites anyway?

The problem that many of us, me included,
don't like to accept is that aviation is not self-supporting and is
subsidized heavily from other revenue sources.

I have argued this myth a thousand times, and no one listens. It simply is
not provable given our system of other heavily subsidized activities being
involved. Pointing to the subsidies is not enough. You need to show that
it is MORE subsidized than other activities, as well as trace all the taxes
(monetary and regulatory) on it. I will be happy to cut my subsidy if we
can the rest as well. Let the poor beg the rich, and the food supply shrink
if that is what you want.

A private enterprise
wouldn't likely have this subsidy so the user costs would reflect the true
cost of the sytem and this likely would be ugly ... even if GA only had to
pay for the meager subset of services that it really needs.

I suppose if weather were off the budget, the TV stations would end up
paying for a lot of it. And the airlines would HAVE to have it. I suspect I
could get almost all I need for free anyway.

Most
GA airports simply couldn't survive without subsidies.


I am not too sure of that. The only thing GA airports HAVE to have is
protection from permanent closure. After all, if we want to be able to fly
someplace, there has to be a place to land SOMEWHERE near there. NIMBY's be
damned. Besides, the GA airports by definition have their ability to compete
taken away by the heavily subsidized airports the carriers use.

This argument won't be over until Delta and AMR start building their own
airports.

Since there are still successful privately owned airports I will chalk up
the need for subsidies to government inability to manage them without graft
and inefficiency.


I don't know if this is true for freeways or not, but I'm not sure they
are self supporting either if you consider the total costs, both capital
and expense to maintain them.


My point exactly! The only sure thing is that our taxes are being spent on
lots of things we don't individually care for.

It all comes down to what is less costly, the waste in government or the
profit margin that a private enterprise would require. If the private
enterprise is efficient enough that it can make a profit and still cost
less than a government agency, then it is a good deal overall.


This is true but the problem is measuring the costs and benefits. It's not
easy. Weather has national security value and therefore must be predicted
at least somewhat well. To my knowledge, all weather services are using
some of the NWS resources at this time. I could be wrong, but this tells me
we don't know well if a free market in weather prediction is profitably
sustainable. It could be that we are unwilling to pay for the amount of
accuracy which the government requires.


Matt