A discussion with economist Robert P. Murphy, explores the increasingly blurred lines between private enterprise and state power in modern "mixed economies." The analysis is rooted in libertarian and Austrian economics perspectives, especially those of Murray Rothbard.

Blurring of Public and Private Sectors: The article argues that in today's regulated capitalism, the distinction between private businesses and state actors is often unclear. Many companies operate in ways that are deeply intertwined with government policy, funding, or protection, making it difficult to judge their actions purely as private or public.

Libertarian Ethics and State Partnership: Murphy emphasizes that, from a libertarian standpoint, it's not always straightforward to determine when a company is a "partner" of the state or a "victim" of state coercion. Intent and context matter: if a business lobbies for government privileges or enforces state-backed monopolies, it is acting illegitimately. However, if it merely operates within a state-created framework without having agitated for it, the moral culpability is less clear.

Government-Dependent Companies: The article discusses companies whose primary customer is the government (e.g., defense contractors, voting machine suppliers). Murphy suggests that if a company knowingly provides goods or services that the state uses to violate rights, it should not be considered part of the voluntary private sector. However, if the company's products would exist in a free market and government is simply the main buyer, legitimacy is possible-but the lack of genuine market competition makes this a "slippery slope" and often suspect in practice.

Censorship and Social Media: On the issue of social media censorship, Murphy distinguishes between companies acting under government pressure and those acting independently. If government officials coerce platforms like Twitter or Facebook to moderate content, the companies and their staff may themselves be victims of state overreach. Regardless, libertarians should not defend censorship simply because it occurs on "private" platforms if the state is involved behind the scenes.

Banking and Bailouts: The banking sector's close relationship with the state, especially evident in bailouts and "too big to fail" policies, is highlighted as a clear example of state favoritism. Murphy notes that while individual bank executives may have little choice but to accept bailout money, the precedent set by such interventions is dangerous and distorts genuine market processes.

Tax Breaks and Favoritism: Selective tax breaks for specific companies are critiqued as a form of government favoritism that circumvents competitive markets. While tax cuts are generally positive from a libertarian perspective, targeted breaks for politically connected firms undermine fairness and market discipline.

Healthcare and Regulatory Capture: The article concludes by noting that sectors like healthcare are so dominated by government spending and regulation that it is difficult to speak meaningfully of a "private market" at all. Private firms often help write the very regulations that shape their industries, further entangling public and private interests.

The modern economy is characterized by deep interconnections between state power and private enterprise. Libertarians should be wary of defending all business actions as "private," especially when companies benefit from state privilege, coercion, or favoritism. True market legitimacy requires voluntary patronage and genuine competition, not state-backed advantage.