I find it ridiculous that you have to pay money to protect your own identity/passwords etc. Every free anti-virus has an enhanced, purchased version that says it'll protect you from hackers when you shop and bank and the free version won't. That isn't fair. It's like paying for protection of your life, only that your paying to prevent yourself from loosing money.
Anyway, discuss.
Anti-virus software companies are there to make money so that they can survive. They are not funded by anyone. If you want free anti-virus, you would just have to pay for it in equivalent tax, which doesn't really save very much.
Some kind developers give up their life to make their incredible complex and expensive anti-virus software free and available. It is fair that they can offer a paid version as well as the free edition to make a little bit of money for them and their families. And to do that, they have to big up the paid versions. But in all honesty, the free versions are perfectly adequate.
Now, you may ask why Microsoft doesn't fund just such a project. Initially, they can't. This is to leave open a gap in the market for small companies to fill. Now that a very great many years has passed, and those companies (Norton, McAfee, ESET, etc.) are all big enough, Microsoft can fund such a project. They decided to create it in-house (a good idea in my opinion), and it is totally free to Genuine Windows Users: Microsoft Security Essentials.
There are plenty of free anti-virus software packages out there, all of which are perfectly adequate. However, there are some feature rich packages (some would call bloated) out there (e.g. McAfee and Norton), which Microsoft will not move into for quite some time so as to not bankrupt all of the smaller competition.
And if you want to have a free (funded) global provider, convince the politicians in all countries that signing over power to a world government is the best thing to do.
Richard