The internet and electric lines are provided by Time Warner and ConEdison, respectively.
As far as I'm aware, few libertarians have any beef with streetlamps or preventing violence. Of course, like most people, you avoided the main issue - the majority of the US government (65%, see my other post on this topic) is not preventing violence or providing roads. It's redistributing wealth.
To bring up 35% of government spending while ignoring the other 65% is disingenuous.
If that's the question you wanted answered, it should have been the question you asked. Instead, you asked which goodies are provided by a society with a complex government structure.
Leaving aside the direct governmental involvement in the creation of the internet. Leaving aside the governmental influence in promoting the widespread use of electricity in the early 20th century. Time Warner and ConEdison don't exist without the complex governmental structures that define a corporation and provide the framework for them to operate.
There is a reason why corporations don't exist in places like Somalia. There is a reason why corporations who incorporate in places like Bermuda don't actually do anything in those places. It's no coincidence that the most technologically advanced nations on the planet are also the ones with the most complex governmental structures. They are inextricably linked. Without one, you simply don't have the other.
There's also the matter of the impact complex governmental structures have in protecting your private property. The little old lady at the county records office provides far, far more protection for your property than any gun ever will. Your private property exists because the government provides the framework for it to exist. Without things like car titles and property deeds, how long do you think it will be before someone just comes along and drives you out of your home so they can have it?
If libertarians ever really thought about how much of their comfortable existence relied on the government they hated so much, their heads would explode.
Again: virtually no libertarians have any objection to the enforcement of contracts, protection of property, etc. Most libertarians believe these are legitimate functions of the government, and that all governments should provide them.
You seem to be confusing libertarians with anarchists. It is anarchists who oppose these things.
Also, you are clueless about Somalia. Corporations do exist there - for example they have about 14 phone companies and one of the best telecom systems in Africa. Also, their system of law (enforced by 4 separate governments) is based on Sharia (Islamic Law), not libertarian or anarchist principles. I have no idea why you are bringing up Somalia.
Somali law(s) are definitely NOT based on Sharia, their claims to the contrary.
Rather its based on clan/family cooperation & paid protection. The 14 corporations are not "legal" in any sense of the word. They might be registered overseas, but there is no central record to register business & contracts in Somalia. People enter into agreements with the firm understanding that the cheater WILL be physically harmed. There are multi-million dollar businesses, even airlines, but everything boils down to mutual agreement.
If you fuck over someone they will hurt you, your family, your tribesmen, etc. Because of that, tribes ENFORCE contracts agreed to by their members, to avoid spilling the damage to the rest.
As far as I'm aware, few libertarians have any beef with streetlamps or preventing violence. Of course, like most people, you avoided the main issue - the majority of the US government (65%, see my other post on this topic) is not preventing violence or providing roads. It's redistributing wealth.
To bring up 35% of government spending while ignoring the other 65% is disingenuous.