#1 even though single person can claim that - “I don’t want or intend to use govt. infra structure and in return I don’t want to pay any taxes” as govt. I (read : govt.)
cannot keep a track of whether he is using it or not and hence, just by mere assumption - they are not using it and are dead honest I can’t simply give him/her complete tax waiver.

Are you saying that there is no way by which a Hospital can determine whether someone is using their resources or not?
There is no way by which an insurance company can find out whether someone is using their insurance or not?
There is no way by which a Sam’s Club determine whether a non-member is buying stuff from them at discount(for member’s only) rate or not?

#2 Currently I(read - govt.) can’t see any private bodies which are ready to take mantle of all above services completely on their shoulders which currently govt. taking care of and if I do see them and found they are capable of running it with profit and in turn giving public much better quality services then I am gladly opting for privatizing those sectors perhaps in phased manner even if I need to face the “antipoor” remarks by communists and leftist political parties in INDIA.

There are no private bodies which are running railways because the of the LAW against entry of private competitors in Railways.
Seriously dude what is wrong with you? I mean am not sure we are having a dialog here I mean what really is your ideology, and how come every article which appears on this blog is in contradiction to your beliefs, irrespective of what it talks about.
There is a law against Guns, owning Tanks, owning mortars, AK-47s, running railways, making roads, running your own private currencies, banking without RBI’s approval, carrying letters, and doing a zillion things. And then you ask “how will free Market run its own private currencies, I don’t see any company doing that??”, “How will free market run railways, there are no currently known companies having their own railway tracks?”.
All these costs are externalized to tax payers, so why would anyone pay for a private agency doing the same job for more price.

I think we already explored the flaws in private courts 
i.e. 1) Judges should be mutually agreeable for both parties before presenting the case before the court.

Is that a flaw or is that a positive point for a private judiciary?
Coz I don’t know how imposing a monopolistic judge on everyone is a positive point?
If two people don’t agree on a common third party Dispute Resolution Organization(DRO) they will go to their own respective DROs, if both the DROs give same decision then both the parties will be abided by the decision and dispute is said to be solved.
If both the DRO’s give different decisions then they are said to be in a dispute and they will go to a commonly agreed third party DRO.
Whichever DRO they agree to, its decision will be binding to both the parties and then dispute will be said to be solved.
If the DROs themselves cannot agree upon a common DRO, they can again follow the same pattern as their clients did, but it cannot go on indefinitely because its really costly to seek justice, and the costs will be bore by both the DROs.

2) I don’t think you will be able to justify private defence agencies — -> I am talking about guarding the boundaries of nation and not personal security guards( again they are subject to changing loyalties and coercion no matter how much money you pay them ). But I have kept my mind open to read  your thoughts on this.

There is no nation, nation is merely the area having a nation’s govt’s monopoly. If there is no govt, there are no public properties, if there are no public properties every property is privately owned, that means every private property owner will have to subscribe to their own private defense agencies. So a defense of the “so called nation”(lets say if Pakistan decided to attack the properties in Punjab), will be defended by unifying the defense against the rouge state.

In simple words, if you and me are one of the numerous private defense agencies providing services to people of Punjab and Pakistan invades the properties adjoining their border its in our best interest to contribute in the defense of those properties(whomsoever are the subscribed agencies in those areas).

I think we already explored the flaws in private courts 
i.e. 1) Judges should be mutually agreeable for both parties before presenting the case before the court.
2) I don’t think you will be able to justify private defence agencies — -> I am talking about guarding the boundaries of nation and not personal security guards( again they are subject to changing loyalties and coercion no matter how much money you pay them ). But I have kept my mind open to read  your thoughts on this.  

The third argument against private roads is, what if the owner of a major highway wanted to prevent some arbitrary group, say, Kakusa people, from using the highway, and felt so strongly that he went to great lengths to make sure no Kakusa people drove on his road? Is there anything to stop him?
It is highly improbable for a road owner to ban any one or any group from using the road he owns. It would be very expensive way for him to show his anger or opposition to Kakusa people, why will he not want to earn from the potential Kakusa user of his road? The situation would be just like the town situation, if the road owner restricts Kakusa people using his road, Kakusa people will move away, and the competitive road owner/maker will succeed in market.

(For any further argument/debate over privatization of Roads, please put it on here http://www.reasonforliberty.com/objectivism/private-roads.html

Gopi,

What would happen if Google decides to remove a persons site due to personal conflicts? Here it should be obvious that it would be wrong to coerce Google to do it. There are people who say that power shouldn’t be misused even if they got the power through the right means.Some say that if a person has a button on the desk and could harm anyone by pushing the button,it still would be wrong to push even if the button got there through the right means.I don’t share that view point.Individual rights ought to be respected,no matter what the cost.

I was not referring to corruption.The very term “Government investment” is wrong.There can be no such investment.What we call investment is what businessmen do to serve the ultimate consumers.In the case of the government,spending is just to satisfy the politicians and bureaucrats.If it is to serve the consumers why not have the tax payer keep that money with him and invest.Government enterprises are not run with a profit test.There is no way to know whether a government  enterprise is serving the customers or not as there is no profit mechanist.What I mean was that it is economically wrong to say “Government investment”.There is a quote in Ayn rand’s Fountainhead-Gail Wynand speaks to Howard Roark-He says something to this effect-“There are only two ways to pander to the masses.One is to decide what they want and ram it down their throats.The other is to give them what they want.” Government does the first and businessmen do the second.Hope you get the point.

The question you asked regarding the case of roads is very valid.So many people ask that question.There would be the right to boycott in a free society.That doesn’t mean that it would end up like that.Rothbard answers this question in one of his books-I think it is “For A New Liberty”.He says that it is tantamount to asking what would a person do if he is not allowed to move out of his house by his surrounding neighbours.

I will deal with the concept of privatized defense in another blog.I have been thinking of writing one for a long time,but have never got around to do it due the complexities of the subject.It is a huge topic.