When private enterprise makes decisions, those with more money get more choice. If a road gets built, it's because those with money agree it will benefit them.

If a democracy starts letting the rich have more say, then it needs to be strengthened to resist them, not weakened so they can do as they please.

Isn't this an assumption? Perhaps if the system were such that every issue were up to a nation-wide popular vote, the statement would be true...not that such a system is a good idea.

Some votes are worth infinitely more than others. That is to say, many votes are worth nothing. If you vote for the opposition party in a district that is 75% supportive of the incumbent party, your vote doesn't matter. It will (hopefully) be counted, but no one will take your opinion into account.

The other assumption is that majority rule is something worth working towards. Everyone wants government power to work for them. Problem is, it's a power that can't really be controlled. You might get your way this election cycle, but that same power could be used against you when the uneducated reactionaries rise up next time around.

The theory of free market capitalism presupposes competitive pressure as a check on the power of market participants. A monopoly has no such competition, allowing it to be abusive and reactionary.

There is no such expectation of competition with governments. The check on the government's power comes from the political system. Checks and balances and the four boxes of liberty. It is completely possible for this to fail too, but when that happens the efficiency of telecommunications provisioning is the least of your worries.

> With a private enterprise, even if it is a monopoly, I still have a choice: I can stop paying and not use the service. Can I stop paying to the government?

Of course you can. You can move to another country, or another planet. It's becoming about as practical as not having internet service.