My comment on police was a pro-active protection from those who might write that police protection isn't very good for some people, nothing else.
Don't argue local government vs. Federal; your original statement said "Government," not "Federal government." IMHO, the same arguments apply at different scales of government.
The Tragedy of the Commons can apply to any common resource, not just environment or a grassy field. Think watersheds and who gets to use how much of the water. Think all of the available bandwidth and how it gets allocated, billed, filtered, and blocked. I consider the Internet to be a shared resource, conceptually.
The interstate highway system was conceived and built by the federal government. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System.
"The people who stood up for social reform and equality are what ended those laws, not the government deciding it on it's own." Very few slaveowners divested because their neighbors picketed them. They divested because their state or local governments outlawed slavery, or because the North defeated the South and, whether or not slavery was the point of the Civil War, the Federal government chose to make it illegal nation-wide and to actually enforce that law. The people who stood up for abolition motivated more people and formed an important movement, and rescued large numbers of individual slaves, but ultimately effected large-scale change by influencing government activity. Point in fact - human trafficking is still much in the news. We look to both governments and NGO's to suppress it, not the best nature of the individual people.
"The only thing the government can do well is hold a gun to your head..." sounded pretty inflammatory to me; I was referring to the phrasing, not the idea that business should be free of government interference.
-----------------------------------------
Details aside, the point is that I strongly disagree with the idea that "the government should not interfere with business," and I was providing what seem to me to be examples of things that go better when a government is involved.
Although any particular instance of a government may be coercive and act in some ways contrary to some of the interests of some or all of the citizens, it seems to me that a government is the only way for a populace larger than a family to regulate the interaction of its citizens. And preferable to a combination of anarchy and having the strong bop the weak over the heads and take everything.
And that, both from you and from me, is getting back on point. Should a government have say over the Internet, or only the companies that paid for and run the infrastructure? Many of us find the latter idea anti-competitive, and think that the government has a duty to encourage open competition, such as when monopolies were broken up.