Andy - you quoted half a paragraph from the 'Support' section of Wikipedia.The opening support paragraph goes on to say "Many proponents do not argue that everything should be privatized. According to them, market failures and natural monopolies could be problematic. However, anarcho-capitalists prefer that every function of the state be privatized, including defense and dispute resolution.[37]"I will add the opening paragraph of the 'Opposition' section"Opponents of certain privatizations believe that certain public goods and services should remain primarily in the hands of government in order to ensure that everyone in society has access to them (such as law enforcement, basic health care, and basic education). There is a positive externality when the government provides society at large with public goods and services such as defense and disease control. Some national constitutions in effect define their governments' "core businesses" as being the provision of such things as justice, tranquility, defense, and general welfare. These governments' direct provision of security, stability, and safety, is intended to be done for the common good (in the public interest) with a long-term (for posterity) perspective. As for natural monopolies, opponents of privatization claim that they aren't subject to fair competition, and better administrated by the state."In my opinion, it's important to be balanced here. Few would argue that the state should make its own bricks or batteries but even fewer would argue that the army should be privatised. My own view (possibly biased because I had a career in IT services including outsourcing) is that it can make sense to outsource back-office services that support government - or indeed private industry - but privatising front line service provision or natural monopolies is folly.
Guy Lambert ● 1946d