Do you really expect anyone to take a comment like that seriously? What are you interested in opting out of?
Your "freedom" protected by the Dept. of Defense?
Relatively clean air and water regulated by the EPA?
Paved roads paid, in part, by the Dept. of Transportation?
Food that won't kill you regulated by the Dept. of Agriculture?
Public power monopolies regulated by the Dept. of Energy?
The Department of Agriculture and 80 years of farm subsidies have been one of the most destructive forces imaginable. The government acts as a cheerleader rather than a promoter of public safety. Note that obesity was never really an issue until the government started promoting a high carb, low fat diet with "substitutes" like hydrogenated oils. They've finally gotten wise to trans fats, but still promote garbage like whole grains (loaded with gluten).
Roads are mostly a state government issue, rather than the DOT. Granted, it is still government. It's a similar story with the DOE. However, there is a legitimate debate over how roads should be funded (general income and sales taxes vs. targeted taxes on users such as gas taxes, tolls, or mileage charges).
In general, most people will acknowledge that defense is a vital service that can only be provided by government. However, note that it is often the most ardent supporters of government who find themselves annoyed at that, since governments also start wars.
If we look solely at the federal level, the largest expenditures are defense, interest on the debt, Social Security, and Medicare (in roughly that order, though in the coming years the latter 3 will move up). All are sacred cows to enough of the population, making real reform difficult, but at the same time there is no realistic way we can pay our existing promises with taxes alone (and certainly not simply taxing the "rich" and corporations).
----------
Not in the US they weren't - at least not really. The railway companies in the US were heavily subsidised with land grants to build the railways. They got about 10% of all US land to build the railways.
So what do you do about all the state and local taxes which are regressive?
Read up on the Great Northern Railroad. Unlike the Union Pacific and Central Pacific, it was a transcontinental railroad built almost entirely without public subsidies of any kind, and was so successful that the "progressive" Theodore Roosevelt administration broke it up with bogus anti-trust legislation. The UP and CP were highly corrupt and relied heavily on subsidies.
It's up to states and local government to figure out how to fund themselves. The federal government isn't responsible for them. However, the feds ought to stop imposing unfunded mandates on states and attaching all kinds of strings to things like highway funding and FEMA benefits.
----------
We don't need fewer loopholes...we need NO loopholes. Knock out every single credit and deduction and then dramatically cut rates across the board, setting the top end around 15% and treating all sources of income the same.
It'll never happen in a billion years because the vast majority of our leaders are spineless when it comes to disrupting the status quo. People would also raise ten kinds of hell if we tried to do away with the mortgage deduction and child tax credit...as if we need to somehow subsidize every decision a person makes.
The really silly thing in all the fiscal cliff debate is that at one point Congress did offer the President $800 billion in new revenue by limiting loopholes, but he didn't take it since he insisted on higher headline rates. It was completely a case of symbolism over substance. The last time we had real tax reform was 1986 (in what was truly a bipartisan effort). Since then politicians have undone virtually all the progress made then, and we have a tax code that is just as complex and nonsensical as what we "fixed" back then. With this Congress and this President, I don't see a real chance for reform. The GOP spent most of the last 2 years trying to undermine the President, and judging by the past few weeks, it looks like the President will try to return the favor over the next 2 years by doing everything he can to undermine and divide them. This isn't Reagan and Tip O'Neill or even Clinton and Gingrich who we are dealing with. I don't think tax reform would be a priority if the Democrats take control of Congress in 2014 (though we'll probably see rates jacked up even higher and the threshold reduced to the $250,000 they originally wanted).
In reality we need a President who is a dealmaker, which Obama isn't. Perhaps if Christie, Hillary, or Biden, who all have reputations as dealmakers, get elected in 2016 we might have a chance.
