Here is a thing I think about not being a libertarian.
Some things in society are more important than profit. That is why the government tries to take care of them. Like the mail, for example. If the post office was able to just say, your town has too much crime, we will no longer deliver mail there because of liability. Or X company is paying us to not deliver mail to your house because it wants to buy your property and if life is harder for you here, they will have a better chance at forcing you out. Or even “We will no longer accept NSFW mail without an extra tax. To enforce this we will be checking out the content of all mail. Private companies could do this stuff. They absolutely could and without warning. If the CEO wanted, they could even do crappy things without a profit motive in the same way private companies might donate proceeds to a cause that fits with their corporate values.
So the government steps in. And they are maybe not as efficient. Maybe you can even blame lack of a profit motive for mismanagement and inefficiency like many libertarians do.
But the free market can’t enforce values that are fundamentally at odds with profit, for example uniformity of service regardless of the cost of providing that service. If USPS was gone, shipping companies would be free to allocate their resources in proportion to the most profitable services at the cost of choices for people. If it is the goal of the US to enable those choices, as decided by our elected representatives, then to ensure that that is how it goes, I think that sacrificing optimal efficiency in order to safeguard our goals is fully acceptable.
I used the post office as an example because.. I guess it made sense to me without feeling too controversial. But I think it is also true of health care and education and social welfare as well. I think it is worth paying extra to safeguard our goals and values in ways that would not be fair to demand of social enterprise.
So I don’t exactly know where that rant came from. But that’s what I think.