Jeff was a wise man, but mobs are still mobs. I don't trust anyone to have my best interests in mind besides myself.

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all."
~ Thomas Jefferson

And somehow the "people" know better? I don't agree.

I don't disagree. As I say, I prefer a very limited gov't as I would fear a private solution where the more powerful/wealthy could dominate the poor. But, that said, I still think there are some things from a private solution that bear study and evaluation.

Plus, institutions which are privatized are no longer beholden to the people, as they are not bound by the same rules and regulations as government owned institutions would be, and their leaders cannot be voted out of office by the American people, because owners of private industries do not qualify as even being in office.

Actually no, it showed that there was a peak at which point taxation would produce the most revenue, and that increasing OR decreasing off of that peak would reduce revenue. Whether you should decrease or increase taxation is dependent upon your current location on the curve.

What's your point? All Laffer showed was that increasing taxation rates leads to lower actual taxes being collected.

That assumes that only gov't can provide some services - principally a military, a justice system, and private property protections. I happen to agree, but there have been some powerful arguments on how these could be provided on a private basis that seem worthy of evaluation. In any case it is not the instance of gov't spending that is the impetus for increased economic activity, rather it is the increased security that the benefits of economic investment will be protected, whether that is done via gov't or private is immaterial - it is the security which is the essence.

What about the Laffer curve?