I've never heard anyone describe the free market as a utopia, that's just a strawman; just a better system. The common argument against economic liberalism is about exploitation and such things like that, but no one claimed that it would never happen to a degree; the fallacy is however to think that corruption and exploitation is somehow less common under an economy under strong centralised controls. I would argue that exploitation is much worse under a system in which those who are corruptible have much more control and influence over the economy than would otherwise be the case - and indeed the system is designed for lobbyists and special interest groups to take advantage of the system for their own selfish gain, which is something quite demonstrable in our current system.
So what is difficult about judging the standards of a teacher or school? It's very easy, just look at the results of students from that school, the reputation it has, and look at some of the lectures online of a teacher to see what they're like. Little fundamental difference from judging the quality of an automobile or breakfast cereal and I don't understand your criticism. Concerning how much teachers are paid, you seem to be under the impression that there is some arbitrating body deciding the salary of teachers like it's a public system. This isn't the case and the salary of a teacher would be more dependent on the consumer's perception of how much the teacher's services are worth like it is with anything in the market. And opening up schooling to competition doesn't just have an effect on teacher's salaries, it also drives down prices and increases the effectiveness of teaching country-wide as more effective teaching methods are created and emulated - because parents have a choice and send their kids to the best schools possible - way more than reforming the curriculum for the 1000th time or common core ever would or does. In effect it creates an better environment for every student, even poorer communities which the Left claim to be so concerned about.
I have heard pretty much every Left-wing hypothesis in the book about why strong government interference in the economy is necessary, however I have yet to hear a convincing argument or see a an actual example. These hypothesises often fall flat on their faces when you look at historical and contemporary examples.
For example looking into your claim about this Nestle CEO, you actually realise that what he is talking about is regulating all sources of water "for the environment". This would necessitate a strong monopoly of power, in other words the government, to pull off. Because if you think about it for two seconds you realise that monopolising every or nearly every source of water without coercive action is a ridiculous and impossible concept. And that is what he is talking about, he is talking about using the vehicle of the government to regulate water even from people who have their own private wells or rainwater tanks.
And I really don't see what the point is about Amazon, I have heard a lot of people complain about them having a high market share, but what exactly is the problem with this? I like buying books of Amazon because they are very cheap; this goes against the central idea against monopolies which is that they can artificially inflate prices and are bad for the consumer. What is really happening is simply economy of scale; these big companies can offer a cheaper service and thus out compete smaller competitors. There is nothing wrong with this and it's good for the consumer. And one thing to note is that an economy of scale can quickly turn into a diseconomy of scale, in which upsizing creates more inefficiencies because of administrative costs and problems. I can buy books of amazon, and I can also go to my local bookstore, which is more expensive but it's very popular nonetheless because people enjoy that experience of shopping at a bookstore. I fail to see any problems with these oft demonised corporations simply because they can outcompete other businesses because they can offer cheaper prices.
And what are these public services that are apparently so important yet apparently no one would pay for them unless they are forced to by the government? I can think of Aus Post, something that barely anyone uses for mail and taxpayers have to pay the 4.6 million dollar salary of the CEO. It's nothing more than a form of corporate welfare which sustains inefficient companies that would fail or at least have to be optimised without this funding. Buses are expensive? Says who? How much do you think the fare has to be to cover the cost of fuel, maintenance, and the salary of a relatively unskilled worker in a bus carrying two dozen people? Literally anyone with some driving skill could take out a loan and start doing their own bus route, in the absence of bus driver unions, public transport services, or having to jump through 1000 arbitrary hoops of red tape forcing would-be entrepreneurs out of the market. It makes no logical sense that it would be expensive.
The thing with these public companies like public bus services is they are inefficient, they don't have to worry about making a profit, or putting it another way, not running a deficit, so there is no incentive for them to optimise their service anywhere near the level of a private company. Well you might argue, "if they were for profit, they wouldn't run through poor areas that don't generate much revenue!". Well, besides the fact that that argument is dangerously similar to that in the dystopian universe of Atlas Shrugged in which trains of Taggart Transcontinental had to go through poor, desolate areas instead of the industrious oil fields for "public good", you can't even really justify this in terms of "helping the poor". If a bus has to run an inefficient route then that cost is passed directly to the taxpayer: the taxpayers, the businesses have to pay higher taxes and subsequently that cost is passed off in increased cost of products, lower wages and less employees et cetera, stuff that will directly hurt poor people and it makes it harder for people trying to get into the middle class. So the typical context that these scenarios are put in in which it is stated that we will just "tax the rich" to pay for these things is no valid excuse.
And welfare? None of those things you mentioned cannot be done be private charity rather than welfare. And as I've explained before, charity is much more efficient: 70% of welfare money goes on administrative costs, while this is less than 30% for private charity. And charity is actually much better at helping people get out of poverty, while welfare creates a trap where in some cases people would need to earn much more than the minimum wage working a full time job just to break even with the benefits they could get on welfare. In effect, it penalises people for getting out of welfare. And it is said that the biggest cost of welfare isn't even the financial cost, but the human cost.
So, you come from a somewhat centrist angle, but I don't automatically consider the mainstream as correct and neither do I take accusations of being a radical as an insult. The mainstream political climate 50 years ago would be considered radical today and so it will be in 50 years from now. So I don't see our current political climate as the zenith of political or philosophical theory, and I don't feel any need to accept this recent trend of socialism as a necessary element in our society when it doesn't hold up under sceptical scrutiny.
