>Instead of the government acting as either entirely public or entirely private, why shouldn’t it act instead as a mediator between the public and the private?

>Instead of the government acting as either entirely public or entirely private, why shouldn’t it act instead as a mediator between the public and the private? This seems to be the most logical decision for me compared to either full socialism or full libertarianism. It depends on the context of mediation. In one sense, government-as-mediator is completely compatible with a libertarian nightwatchman state so long as such mediation is impartial and does not infringe on public and private rights of either party. But I don't think such a distinction helps here, as the functional differences between taxis and Uber amount to little more than legal fiction.