People should be allowed to keep 100% of their earnings. To involuntarily take a percentage is by definition immoral (theft).
Also, private charity is only good for very public, acute problems. It sucks for non-cute things (eg mental health) and for long-term things (someone crippled for life).
So no use of public utilities, roads, etc, oh and your company can't employ people who have benefited from them either - like going to a public or state school.
Good luck with that.
Private companies and co-ops can and do operate roads, electricity production, waste collection, etc. It's just a matter of government standing in the way of it being a more direct transaction.
I'm not necessarily saying one way or the other is a better solution, but to invalidate their argument on the grounds that "it's like this way already" or "I grew up this way" essentially is bullshit.
If you want something that doesn't have a good counter-argument, look at policing and contract enforcement (basically, a public legal system). That's something that can't be done very well by a private entity or multiple competing private entities.
Another problem without much of a counter-argument is looking at e.g. utilities and roads together (i.e. a monopolistic infrastructure with a non-monopolistic infrastructure). Roads are monopolistic because they control that land - in order to use it, you have to pay the owner what they want. This isn't too big of a problem because if you feel one route costs too much, you can simply take another route. Utilities on the other hand, can be provided by anyone, as long as they run the pipes, lines, etc. out to you. In itself, if you feel one utility costs too much, you can pick another utility. The problem comes with combining the two - typically to deliver the utility to you, they would also have to pay the road owner to run the lines along and/or make some agreement. So what happens when an exclusivity agreement comes into play?
Well, unless you don't want the utility at all, you have no choice but to either pay whatever fee they want you to, or move. When you move, it's possible an exclusivity agreement exists there too. One could argue that it's not any better the way it currently is (Comcast, etc.) however you couldn't make it better by making everything privately-owned without regulation, and you could make it better by going further towards the public side.
Smart, minimal regulation is often a better alternative to no regulation or to government ownership.
I think there's a simpler combination approach here which works out better in most if not all cases. Rather than having a central government to provide the utility themselves (ie: government gives you internet instead of comcast), instead use the government enforce competition, sharing of delivery lines, etc. This is the system that's been adopted in Canada and the UK and has generally solved the issue a lot better than the net neutrality rules and such which have been put in place in the US have.
It's cheaper on tax payers and still allows the market to ultimately provide many options and technological advances to consumers more rapidly. It's better for a government to make a market than to kill a market.
Yeah, like a lot of Libertarian "counter-points" though it's very handwavy and doesn't really hold up to much scrutiny when looked at for the economics of it.
We used to do that - know what happened? Mostly terrible "roads" and a few VERY expensive ways to travel. At some point all those systems got nationalized - why? Because it works better.