On the other hand though, I see a lot of problems with a privately run police force. For example if the chief of police was making a profit from fighting crime, why would he not expand his business by creating more crime to fight?

Only if you pay him by criminal caught, as opposed to making him part of an insurance company that is responsible for reimbursing people victimized by crime.

The nature of the service and how fundamental it is to society.

Food is fundamental to society, should all food production be government controlled?

If the only drinking straw company decided it was going to make gold straws, poor people wouldn't get any- but that wouldn't be such a big deal.

If the only drinking straw company decided it was going to make gold straws, another company would get into the straw making business and start making affordable straws.

Under the old system people had two choices:

1) Pay a private fire company.

2) Take the risk their house will burn down.

The new system is equivalent to the old except people can only make choice (1) and the private fire company is now a public fire department.

Your claim appears to be that the new system is an improvement even though people have strictly fewer choices.

Let me give you this hypothetical example: a company can either make $10 a lolly selling type A or it can make $1 selling type B. The 'problem' is that type A is known by the company (but not the public) to be poisonous.

If someone finds out that their poisonous he has the option of buying from a different company. By way of contrast, if all lollies were manufactured by the "department of lollies" and the head of the department decided to sell the poison lollies to meet budget constraints, my only recourse is to not consume lollies.

Notice that the private company can engage in this kind of behavior only if they are sure the defect will never be found out, by contrast the government department has no reason not to produce products with glaring defects, after all it's not like people can switch to a competing product. Furthermore, the the salary of the department head likely isn't even affected by how many people buy the products produced, so he is perfectly happy to waste public resources producing defective products no one wants.

But just look at one example if you want to understand my point of view; before fire fighters were socialised, there existed a time in the US where people had to pay private companies or have their house burn down.

Now they have to pay (higher) taxes or be arrested for tax evasion. What's your point?

No laws or regulation? I hope you know that most people who advocate for capitalism aren't anarchists, and those of them who are believe in free-market laws. So there's no one who's in favor of "no laws or regulation".

Human nature. Most people can't see past their own nose. In fact some people have such a massive problem finding empathy for other people that they act, for one example, racist and intolerant to other people. To put it simply, I think human kind has demonstrated how selfish and cruel it can be when left unrestrained. To have an entirely free market and everything private owned would be to let free and even propel all of the nasty things inside people. Just as without laws we will have (more) people hurting each other in society, so too do we need to regulate how people economically interact with each other

And yet you believe the proses of taking a government job magically cures people of all these problems?

As a libertarian, I don't think you and I mean the same things by "capitalism". Could you explain what you mean by "capitalism", and "unrestrained capitalism"?

They were wrong. They caused negative utility. It negatively effected the world

All that about a single downvote..? X-D

I recommend growing thicker skin, quickly.

When we find it hard to think that things are as they are, and we find it hard to see why things are as they are, that's often a good time to pay close attention to the behavior of the system. Often this has better results than expecting the behavior to be different and complaining when it isn't... though admittedly, sometimes complaining has good results.

Or do you have a third alternative in mind?

Yes, it's an assumption.
An irrational assumption? No, not especially. In the absence of special information about you, it's rational enough to assume you are a typical commenter on this site. If they observe evidence of your exceptionality, a rational observer updates based on that information.