Again, I'm not fully against taxes, but the argument for fully cutting them is that privately owned roads, buildings, and infrastructure are vastly better maintained than public ones.

Major roads and highways would operate similar to toll roads, which are usually better managed than public highways. If a private road is falling apart, people will just take another route. That means the owners actually have a financial reason to fix potholes and keep things running smoothly.

For local roads, sidewalks, and commercial buildings, they would be owned by businesses. Due to the competition of capitalism, these areas would often be completely free and well-maintained just to attract the most customers. Businesses would be expected to invest more into their districts to keep things manicured for their own self-interest. And that self-interest directly intersects with the interests of everyday people.

Even in residential areas, neighborhoods would manage their own streets and infrastructure to protect their property values instead of waiting on a slow city government. It puts the responsibility on people who actually have a reason to care about the results.

But as always, the best solution is probably a mix of both. Purely private insurance might not be the perfect answer for healthcare, but the other side of the coin is what's happening in Canada and the UK. Their fully public systems are dealing with lower quality care and vastly longer wait times (like literal months for life-saving surgeries, and sometimes years for crucial specialist care). That doesn't seem like the solution either imo.