Another one! You posted a thread about declawing cats; surely "real reasons" and "free markets" aren't too relevant here? Despite your sentiment being shared by many on this site, none have voted it insightful here.

Although, now that I'm here… People disagreeing with you isn't necessarily due to a lack of thinking on their part. (I learned that the moderately difficult way, and now you can learn it the easy way by reading a comment.) Ending your comments in "Think." or "Wake up." isn't going to drive your point home; it's going to drive away your target audience.

And, to answer your questions in order:

• A solution to the prisoner's dilemma.
• Neither.
• Neither.
• Numerous reasons, including monopolies resulting from "unions of companies" – unless by the "private market" you mean the "free market", in which case the existence of private associations like the MPAA is a counterargument in itself. (There are, of course, arguments for both sides and arguments questioning the validity of the question itself; I'm merely answering the question posed.)
• Either taxpayers or nobody, depending on how you define "tyranny".
• It depends on how effective their fundraising is and how willing people are to pay for these campaigns. So far, they've proven less willing than people are to pay the taxes required to support such campaigns, but there's insufficient evidence to draw a strong conclusion. I'm reasonably sure of this, though: when smoking was hip and cigarette manufacturers could pay for advertising, few would've been able to get the money to run a campaign to convince people to pay for a campaign to convince people to stop smoking.
• Quite possibly.
• Yes, but there'd be less money available to them; people are less willing to donate to charity than pay taxes. Quite possibly it would be spent better and so more value would be available for welfare; there are legitimate arguments for what you espouse in this rhetorical question.
• False dichotomy. In most countries, people don't need guns to defend themselves from guns because nobody's shooting people with guns in the first place.
• In theory. But who's a "neighbourhood"? Oh, a group of people living close to each other who get together to pay for a particular thing? Now, what if I don't pay? We'll still have enough to pay for the security, if everyone chips in an extra few ¢s. Now what if the next person doesn't pay? In fact, what's the incentive for anyone to pay? Prisoner's dilemma strikes again, and the government is the particular solution that's currently in use.
• No; there's a monopoly on many, many roads, and no matter what price was put on those roads people'd have to pay it because there's insufficient public transport in the US and people need to travel vast distances daily to earn a living.
• No; there's a monopoly on airports.
• Yes, but that tends to result in only the rich having access to education, which isn't what anybody wants. (Except maybe the rich.) This is what used to be the case in much of Europe for a good few centuries, and it didn't work great; I can't remember when the US got state schools.
• No. That isn't what the free market is. How would this even work, and how would it remotely resemble in the slightest way a free market?
• Yes.
• No; monopoly, so not a free market.