I would be in favor of some sort of topology of collaboration or topology of interaction to help clarify what makes a state-business any of the three statuses: complicit, implicit, or submissive, complicit meaning truly in bed with the state, implicit meaning a business may or may not be complicit, & submissive to designate businesses that comply with the state only to the point of generating a profit & being capable to operate. To give a better illustration, perhaps this would be based upon Rothbard’s conception of the topology of coercion.
As to how a business could be categorized, it could be based on an analysis of the businesses history of operation, which would certainly be an empirical undertaking, but if data supported the designations between various businesses (in anecdote, one can surmise they know plenty of people who operate businesses but by no means have lobbying efforts or contort state law for profit, so the concept isn’t far off, I don’t think), it certainly would hurt to explore.
Further, one could also see a business as beginning submissive, but evolving to become implicit, then eventually complicit, based on various factors, but most of which boils down to the sum total of individual’s activities that guide the business itself (which would prevent assuming that all businesses would evolve to become complicit, but would also avoid the assumption that none would).
Individuals involved with businesses who hold the state to be a valid mechanism & even coercion to be valid, would most certainly influence the direction of the company / business; the same would be true of individuals who are anti-coercive, & would find operating a businesses as submissive to the state, but complicit, to be in their best interest (submissive would be somewhat a mis-nomer, morally, but for those who have an interest in operating in the state markets, it’s an apt description).
Not to ignore agorism, which I think would be the solution for those who do not want to operate in state markets, but I just made this up all on the spot, so yea. Even though that idea is not perfect (far from it), it’s a lot more productive than the LL continually feeding into their own mythology about the scourge of the Right Libertarians, & vice-versa, both mystifying the actual status of the other side importance & influence, & whether either side is really as significant as one or the other may claim.
Both are hurting the libertarian movement with concerns for social & ideological influence, & for injecting their values into concepts that need not such values, regardless how “correct” a given individual views either “cultural conservatism” or “cultural marxism”, to be.
If I wanted to root or boo sports teams, I’d go down to the pub & do it, not here.