I think it's pretty obvious that we have deeply differing opinions about social organizations, as such we both have to take care not to resort to axioms of our

I think it's pretty obvious that we have deeply differing opinions about social organizations, as such we both have to take care not to resort to axioms of our respective ideology if we want to talk to each other. In particular, i repeat my previous point: i do not accept your use of "economic efficiency" (for me the material well-being is only a part of the goal). Again, "monopoly [..] the stuff free markets don't have to worry about": no, free markets tend to monopolies in real-life scenarios. Indeed since wealth and power distribution is already highly unequal, any kind of structure will be abusive, with incentives to use its leverage to grow an even bigger share. > The countries which have expected the government to function like business to provide any and all services in return of payment called taxes have performed much worse. Again this i do not accept. For one such a government (which is usually called socialist) is very far from a business since it is strongly limited in scope (shouldn't particularly seek expansion) and doesn't seek to extract marginal profit. Two characteristics which are in contradiction with a consensual definition of "business". It would be more accurate to describe it as a cooperative which is very much anti-capitalistic in nature (i assume you agree that "business" is a capitalistic concept).