Without the state funding universities and defence and without IP laws there would be no Internet. You may argue something else would have emerged and people like Jarod Lanier are very clear what the private alternatives would have been. But the Internet we have today is an outgrowth of the defence infrastructure of NATO and the research budgets that went with it.
You must realize that government funding comes from money taken from the citizens. They have no money of their own. It's just a question of who is more effective at deploying it.
If a person pays millions in taxes and requires a treatment that costs £10000, like say a hip replacement, they can get no more value from that tax money than someone who has paid less tax. The US system charges the rich a lot more for the hip replacement - its important to understand that the rich get nothing for the extra money. Here is a detailed study:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/health/for-medical-tourists-simple-math.html Notice the higher US bills gets nothing extra in terms of medical care.
I think you misunderstand. Yes the person that paid in more can get no more then the same value as his/her treatment but that would have cost them a lot less compared to what they paid in. So in your example it cost them millions for a hip replacement instead of 10000. They got a lot less for what they paid.
I never said private enterprise was not right for delivery of medical services. I said its not right for funding them. All of Europe has private hospitals and they are superb. I was born in one and I saw my father pass away in the same one. However, I don't want to pay some billing company extra money when its cheaper for me to pay via the tax system. No value is added by adding yet another layer of bureaucrats to do billing.
Yes it's cheaper for you but because the money came from the person in the example above. They are the ones paying the extra cost. If there is no value added by another layer of bureaucrats how can there be value added by the 1st layer? Either government services add value or they destroy it. If they add value then the more layers the better. Right?
Are you trying to say that the researchers that work for government now would somehow stop researching if they had to do it in the private sector? Why? If they are smart and want to do it they will do it in any setting. Research is driven by the desire of the human race for advancement or are you saying the government gives them pills that make them smarter or more interested in discovery?
The rest of your points are based on a false split between private and state systems. There is no such thing as a "free" market - the law of contract, secure property rights, the police and defence systems and ooodles of other state things are essential for a working market. They cost money so they can't be "free." Private enterprise is the best way of doing a lot of things but it works as part of a framework within a state. Services like emergency rooms can be delivered privately but the funding has to come from taxpayers.
That's true that currently there is no true free market and likely never will be but the laws of contract, secure property rights, the police and defence systems and ooodles of other state things are actually impediments that are starting to badly suffer from the law of diminishing returns. A service can't be private but funded by taxpayers because it eliminates the most crucial functions of adjusting to customer demands since payments are unrelated to performance.