The government should be there to provide a sort-of "net" against substantial risk.

If it begins to become a nanny-state, or overtly oppressive, it begins to threaten fundamentally important things and runs the risk of becoming bloated.

Oh, and it should also be sovereign.

Do you think education, military, infrastructure, and other large government services can be better suited in the private's hands?

Not the military. Infrastructure. . . Probably. Education? Partly.

It's difficult to be constitutional about this - I can't give you a set of rules for the governing of privatisation. If you want me to answer for my own country and the for the medium term, then for infrastructure: yes, for education: no.

Can you elaborate more on what you said earlier about a sort-of safety net? Is that for business or for the poor (assuming you were referring to welfare)?

I'm talking more about social issues. Things like the preservation of order are obviously important, and maintaining something of a safety-net in terms of welfare is equally important - as well as education, healthcare, immigration and the like.

When it comes to economics? There's a role for the government, but it's much less interventionist than what we have today.

To protect the nation from foreign and domestic threats, and to create and maintain infrastructure. Nothing more. Any prohibition of drugs or consensual acts is immoral for the government to impose.