Tynan,
Excellent idea. Sounds very libertarian, very free market, and similar to what I would come up with myself.
At first I was going to ask you why the government needs to handle the roads and the other things you have under its purview. Then I realized that the "government" you talk about is really a government in name only. What you call the government is really more a business. A government is a monopoly on force within a geographic area. The vast majority of what you describe doesn't involve force (with the possible exception of "power plants would have to be inspected by scientists" -- "have to be" sounds to me like force).
Another big concern I have -- why is any voting (especially for new laws) necessary at all? Voting is really 2 wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner. It's a certain group of people telling others what to do with their own private property. If you really want to follow the spirit of what you outlined below, I *highly* recommend not opening the Pandora's box of voting and the possibility of new laws. Otherwise it will devolve into something you didn't originally envision.
Look at the U.S. as an example. It actually started out pretty free. It was only because of voting (and the new laws that are produced because of that) that the U.S. has become as tyrannical as it is now.
What is better than laws are deed restrictions -- i.e. if a developer builds a group of houses, and all of their deeds say that certain "rules" need to be followed. For example, noise rules, having houses be over a certain height, etc. That way all the rules are private and consensual, rather than being mandated by force.
As long as there is no monopoly on force, I think your idea will work. For example, the company you outlined would build the roads, parks, internet access, etc. But as long as other companies aren't prohibited from competing against that original "government" company, your society will thrive.
Great idea, and if I weren't already moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project I might consider it! (or if the U.S. government becomes too much of a police state and New Hampshire doesn't end up seceding).
Will