Although I agree with the main thesis, I must point out something that muddles matters: if we hadn't had massively subsidized highways, cars would not have been so ubiquitous in postwar America.
I happen to think that this supports the libertarian side, since a government powerful enough to build something of that scope will be vulnerable to lobbyists who want it to build something useful to their industry.
I agree the point of subsidised highway system encourages popularity of automobiles in America.
This also means when government's involvement distorts the market mechanism, the consequence of suburban sprawls, huge consumption of oil will creep in one day. If the government did not try to build too many highways, maybe we will not waste so much of natural resources, right?
I happen to think that this supports the libertarian side, since a government powerful enough to build something of that scope will be vulnerable to lobbyists who want it to build something useful to their industry.