I've never seen a stronger case for ensuring public ownership of key infrastructure in all cases, otherwise you can end up in a situation where two giant econom

I've never seen a stronger case for ensuring public ownership of key infrastructure in all cases, otherwise you can end up in a situation where two giant economies are held hostage by one person. This doesn’t make sense to me. Presumably some entity more specific than the “public” would be responsible for such a work. It would still require a toll in order to exist in a revenue positive way. It would need to be revenue positive in order to build a future replacement. What difference does it make if the entity is controlled by something called an “agency” or by a “company?” Are the various entities chartered by government somehow immune to turf battles and protection of proprietary interests?