I agree with the author on some points, but some of this is pretty hyperbolic.

Even so, what bothers me most about critiques of this nature is that the size and reach of goverment is what is considered to be the problem rather than the principles that the government is operating under.

Take the government control of the radio spectrum, for instance. Without control of broadcast footprints, private operators can broadcast over each other's signals, making the medium ineffective. If left to private enterprise alone to divide the spectrum, monopolization could easily limit access and diversity, since the largest players can suppress competition. However, when operating in the public interests, the government can provide access and diversity, through regulation. Unfortunately, when the government works for the interests of the industry rather than the public's, we can once again end up with monopolization, this time backed by law. In many industries in the West, this is where we are at.

In many industries, it is not so much the size and scope of government, but the motivating interests of government that represent the problem. In the West, large industries have entrenched political power, and wield it to their advantage. Limiting the size and scope of government will not necessarily remedy the monopolization of markets or advance the interests of individuals. Although in some cases limiting the size and power of government might be beneficial, in many sectors, the real solution is to alter the motivations of government power, and to wield in the interests of the people for which it has been established.