Who exactly is arguing for completely eliminating academic funding?

Well, various statements you've made seemed to imply that, such as your claim that burning down the Library of Alexandria had the advantage that:

Academics now forced to get useful job and contribute to society

and you then stated

The point is that some academics are useful and some are not; there is no market process that forces them to be so. It may be that some of the academics are able to continue doing exactly what they were doing, just for a private employer.

If you prefer, to be explicit, you seem to be arguing that all goverment funding of academics should be cut. Is that an accurate assessment? In that context, given that that's the vast majority of academic research, the relevant difference is still the average not the marginal rate of return.