> Sorry, I don't really want private militaries nor private tax collection. You can't have a government without a military or taxes, so it makes sense that gov

> Sorry, I don't really want private militaries nor private tax collection. You can't have a government without a military or taxes, so it makes sense that government handles those things. They are requirements for the existence of government, and can't be delegated without existential risk. Medical research is not a core government function. > I'm happy the government runs things like IDs and drivers licenses. You'd probably be happier if you weren't required by law to get a license in the first place. > In fact, various department of motor vehicles (or whatever your local thing is called) is an excellent example of how a monopoly can be a good or bad experience. I'm originally from Indiana and the motor vehicle folks are great there and the service is easy to use - by design - but it isn't like that everywhere in the US. This has nothing really to do with how "effective" their regulation is. "Sometimes governments can handle basic services" doesn't strike me as a great argument for entrusting the government with complicated, vital services. > I'm not sure actual monopolies are better - are you really satisfied with your electricity provider or ISP? The alternative to government monopoly on the development of antibiotics isn't a private monopoly, it's no monopoly, and ideally without regulations which destroy the market incentives to develop antibiotics.