Thanks for your reply. By way of answer I should first explain a little about my position. The key difference between public and private endeavours is the inclusion of force. The use of force is prohibited to private enterprise except where people have consented to be bound by contract. Governments however, being able to take money by force (taxes) and otherwise use force, e.g. forced purchase of land, are inherently able to act in ways that people deem not to be in their best interests. Therefore, whilst government can provide things people want or need, they differ from private enterprise by being able to also provide what people don't want or need or what would not be their priority for the use of limited resources. I would argue that this difference means that private enterprise could provide virtually anything that was needed, to the extent that it is the most cost-effective use of resources, and better than government can achieve. With regards to competition, it is worth noting that it is hard for private companies to compete with government when private companies must entice people to part with money willingly whilst government can just take it. In my view, this is the main reason that once government has imposed itself in an industry e.g. providing healthcare, education etc. it is hard for people to see how it could be done otherwise. It comes down to this, is it of use or benefit to people such that they would pay to have it without being forced? If so, would it be better run, more efficient and effective if consumers must be encouraged to part with their money willingly, or if they are made to fund it whether it's any good or not, or whether they want it or not? Sorry if this doesn't answer your question.