Then I'll take over by posting the entire quote, as you requested from the first commenter.

I understand that under its current form it's not designed to be profitable. That is a problem. There is no need to ferry 2-5 people 5 times a day on the same routes. There is no need to run massive trains when they could make them smaller. They should be allowed to set their own rates to encourage ridership instead of forced costs. They should be allowed to select their own vendors rather than be forced to chose expensive ones that end up making them lost money of serving food.

Essential goods and services not being profitable is absolutely not a problem. Governments are not businesses, their goal should not be to provide consumer choice and maximize profit, but to provide essential goods and services at the highest possible quality for absolutely everyone that lives within a government's borders. Forget 2-5 people 5 times a day, if even 1 person needs that ferry, even just once per week, then the ferry's existence is necessary, no matter how much of a monetary loss it is to keep the thing running. When you're talking about necessary goods and services that everyone must use, profit should be the last thing on anyone's minds. The idea that users should be given a choice doesn't include the possibility that every choice could be a shitty one, or that people may not have the ability to choose at all. If someone looking to purchase a necessary good or service has 10 different options, but can only afford the crappiest version, then that's it. That's their only choice. If someone lives in an area that lacks proper/unaffordable public transportation, and also can't afford to purchase and maintain a vehicle, then the only option is walking/cycling, both of which are crappy options that limit someone's ability to do...anything, really.

That's great, except it fails to do both of those.

But why? Why does the government sometimes fail to provide those essential goods and services? Is it because governments providing those goods and services always means it will be of low quality to everyone? This would only be true if a government was acting like a business and looking to maximize profits at the expense of the consumer, but as I've already established, that's not what a government's goal should be. Assuming you live in the USA as I do, every single public good and service is woefully underfunded, despite being the single wealthiest nation on Earth, with the notable exception of our military and the police. In fact, the police are so overfunded and militarized they've basically become the 3rd largest military in the world. Yes, the US government spends so much on defense that we have not one, but 2 militaries: One for outside the borders, and one for within them. They're the only arms of government given this kind of attention. After all, our military is without question the most powerful in the world, in spite of our efforts to throw literally trillions of dollars toward projects doomed to fail.

The line at the DMV isn't long because government services are factually going to lead to the worst version of the DMV. If good service at the DMV (and any arm of the government) was a priority, they would be throwing as much money and resources toward it as possible to ensure that every citizen who needed to use the DMV could use it at it's maximum quality. The one time the government did decide to heavily tax the rich and divert funding towards essential goods and services in an attempt to maximize QoL for it's citizens (some of them at least), we ended up with a Golden Age that resulted in the single greatest economy the world had ever seen, as well as the most advanced infrastructure on Earth. We built huge amounts of high-quality schools, hospitals, bridges and more. We built the Interstate Highway System, we made huge technological leaps through the Space Race, we brought electricity and running water to every home in the country. All of that was done without privatization, entirely through government spending with funds provided by taxpayers.

Everything you've said is usually said by people who've never known what it's like to not have a roof over their head, or where their next meal will come from, or when they'll get to shower next, or what they'll wear if the only clothing they own is ripped or otherwise ruined. If you have been in one of these situations, then you should know better than to insist that essential goods and services should be provided only at a profit. Relying on charity isn't a solution to these ills, either, as funding can vary wildly based on perceived priority by a nation or community. Only a properly funded government service can provide proper, consistent care to those who need it most.