"Private option" for government?

I know Ron Paul has mentioned support of this sort of proposal before, but I wasn't really able to find much else on this idea. Has there been any thought given to promotion of a "Private option" for government? That is, people voluntarily giving up their "protections" like police, firefighters, social security, etc. in exchange for not paying taxes. It would seem to me it could be one of the fastest ways to prove the inefficiency of the state. Then again, that's probably why I never hear about this. Most likely I'm foolishly retreading previous ground, but oh well.

It would just turn into a logistical nightmare, not because of any failings of the market, but because it wouldn't be true privatization of government functions.  Rather, it would likely be a more extreme for of competition for the field where the government just contracted out those services and people paid the providers directly and got a tax discount.  However, the 'free rider problem' would be brought up for things like roads and national defense, effectively making it impossible for an individual to fully cut all ties with the state.  Also, it's quite likely the government would enact severe restrictions on the private contractors and/or give special powers and privileges to its own operators in those areas, effectively making it impossible for the private contractors to compete.  You'd just have shitloads of problems and caveats and exceptions and involuntary arrangements that would turn it into another government screw up.

The first step towards this "private option" is to minimize the power and control of the federal government.

Ah, I knew I forgot to mention something in the first place. Private contractors could have the option to no longer pay taxes to the government as well. The most government could do is try to add special subsidies for its little corporations, and just add to the suffering of those living under their thumb. Anyone who wanted to go with those private contractors would, of course, be going "at their own risk" since they would not operate under the state's tyranny-Sorry, I meant "Government regulations to ensure their safety"! Of course, you're right about excuses such as roads and national defense remaining. "You don't pay taxes, but you run on our roads!" "WE help ensure your FREEDOM you ingrate!" Are some of the insults I can imagine even now. Of course, with the option open to private contractors to pave their own roads and to provide defense, who's to say they wouldn't create a city such as "Galt's Gulch"?(No, I don't place a firm ear to Ayn Rand, but I figured that would suffice as an example.)