Ok well I'm going to admit something that hurts my argument somewhat, but it only applies to water and certainly not energy.

Water isn't too expensive here. They don't overcharge, probably because of exactly what you just said... government regulations. Personally, I'm against regulations when it comes to the majority of things, but not when it comes to things like natural monopolies, even if I'm the only one who accepts that term. The regulations you speak of are anti-capitalist measures, they are anti-competetive policies, it is essentially doing exactly what I'm asking for... government control of critical infrastructure.

But energy is definitely too expensive, although that might well be an effort to force people to use less. Still, energy companies are making an absolute fucking fortune thanks to people's need for electricity. Is that being invested in research and development for renewable energy sources? Of course not. We can probably already do that, but there's just too much money in fossil fuels. Renewable energy remains out of reach for most people.

Trains are too expensive too. There should be an effort to get people off the roads, but in most cases it's cheaper to drive somewhere than get the train. That results in more pollution and heavier traffic. Did the trains work better when they were state owned? No, not in the 80's when I can remember, but they were Thatcher days and they were probably deliberately running the state owned service into the ground so the public weren't outraged when it was privatised, that's standard privatisation tactics.

The problem with state owned services is always the state itself, its incompetence or corruption, not the fact it is state owned. That incompetence and corruption can exist in a private company too. The difference is that an incompetent business goes bust, while an incompetent government loses power (or at least they should). Both have incentive.