It's arguable that we'd be better off were that so... part of the tax burden is all the people employed by those taxes who don't actually contribute anything to society on net (that is, whose jobs wouldn't be done at all on the free market)... in this way, taxes can have something like double their cost in harm, potentially.
However, I think there might be a naming problem, here. If it seems likely to have practical applications at some point, it's not "fundamental" or "pure" research anymore. Companies doing research into quantum computers or molecular assembly are certainly doing so because they expect to make a profit on it eventually, but the very fact that they have this expectation means that it's disqualified from fundamental research. I still think that there are examples of companies funding general research on the assumption that something will come of it, but it's hard to disentangle the effects of government. The most prominent example, Bell Labs, was run by a government-supported monopoly, for example.
Companies mostly fund research that brings immediate results. Sure, some (like IBM) may be looking further down the line, and some probably just subsidise some research as PR. But areas where there is no clear advantage and in addition carry a large risk, are mostly shunned by corporations.
If you took the government out of the airline industry now, the country would look very different.
I'm not trying to troll, but I'm curious how different the world would look if we left things like infrastructure to the free market.
If you can find even a single agency on that list which performs a function you wouldn't be willing to pay for, the rest of my comment follows for you, specifically: that agency is a net cost to you comprising both the taxes you pay to fund it (proportionately) and the decrease in wealth caused by keeping those people from contributing to the economy by doing something productive. This isn't specific to the US government, of course; that's just the easiest example.