Originally Posted by Eric5273

There are plenty of things that get accomplished without someone trying to make a buck. I'll use the Fire Department as an example. FDNY is widely recognized as being the best in the country (if not in the world). I'm pretty certain that firefighters (and even their superiors all the way up to the Department Chief) do not get paid based on how many fires they put out, but instead they negotiate a contract with the city which is more based on living expenses, inflation, etc.

Currently, the goal of the Fire Department is actually to prevent fires. So they go around inspecting buildings and giving fire prevention advise and do their best to educate others on how to prevent fires.

Can you imagine if the Fire Department was privately run and earned a profit based on how many fires they put out? Do you think they would then go around trying to prevent fires? Doubtful, as it would be against their better interests. In fact, possibly you could have corruption. You may have arsonists paid under the table to start fires, so the Fire Department could come and put it out and increase their bottom line. Any attempt at fire prevention would probably be opposed and undermined by the Fire Department.

I just give this as an example of how an industry can perform well even though there is no "profit motive", and how profit motive could actually encourage corruption which can harm society.

One more (and perhaps a more relevent) example:

Soldiers in the US Armed Forces do their best to do a good job, and they have no profit motive. If they can do such a good job, then why can't those who design and make the military hardware do a good job on a fixed salary? Pay them a high salary if you must in order to get the best people for the job. But their salary should not be based on how many bombs are dropped or how many war planes or tanks are used by the military.

I have a very hard time believing that all of you think these large companies have no influence whatsoever in encouraging pro-war policies in Washington. If they did not have any influence, they would not be spending tens of millions of dollars in the form of lobbyists, campaign contributions, etc. And if you do agree that they have an influence, then what kind of influence do you think they have? There is only one kind of influence they can possibly have, and that is to encourage policies that will result in higher military spending. And what sort of policies would result in that?