I'm glad you're moving away from blunt accusations, but let's look into details deeper.

> there would be no SpaceX without govt funding

Strictly speaking, historically things evolved one particular way, and we don't know exactly what would happen if something have changed in the past. Here you state your opinion, and I'd say yes, SpaceX used US govt money, but that doesn't mean they couldn't grow without them. They already had an orbital launch on private money - a significant achievement by itself - and there were plans to grow without NASA, which - in my opinion - were reasonable. So I'm skeptical about their guaranteed death without support from US govt money.

> But it does make their model divorced from a purely capitalistic endeavor.

Maybe you mean some rather theoretical, simple pure market model. In reality US govt supports growing industries - Internet is an example - so this is at least rather traditional.

> I am saying he had almost nil chance of winning that game without taxpayer support

This is an opinion. Here is what I know: there is a community, called alt-space (from a Usenet section), or New Space, which basically talked about what SpaceX was doing about a decade before SpaceX. It was a matter of time who'd get this done successfully first. An example of this New Space approach would be Northrop Grumman Lunal Lander Challenge, where John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace showed a lot of impressive technology, and which was eventually won by Masten Space - all of that with reusable rocket technology, landing under power, years before SpaceX made first stages of Falcon-9 reusable. Because of this I think that Elon's stated approach of developing more modest, but cheaper rockets - like Falcon-5 (while continuing flying Falcon-1) - or partnering with Virgin Galactic on droppable launcher - relying only on private market could actually work.

> but I am saying he had almost nil chance of winning that game without taxpayer support.

Beal Aerospace "folded" a few years before SpaceX; now people have doubt if he did the right thing, given that his technology was perhaps even cheaper than SpaceX. NASA also learned a lesson from Beal closing the doors, and was more careful to the next entrant. The final result, by today, is rather good, by popular opinion, I would say - NASA got a good launch supplier, SpaceX got a good anchor customer, so US govt would likely lose if it didn't support SpaceX, and relying on that support was a good approach. Yet even without that support there is no guarantee SpaceX wouldn't succeed; there are some arguments for that.

> if the business model is only viable with government contracts and is particularly viable because it forces taxpayers to shoulder the early risk, yes.

SpaceX brought significant savings to US govt, so that risk - from US point of view - was rather justified. Remember, US govt can't work with only zero-risk schemes, and in such a complex area as space access it has to tolerate some risk, even with existing providers.

> If your business only works by being propped up by the govt

There is no proof that SpaceX couldn't work without govt help. Also govt help brought taxpayers savings - in exchange for some risk, which is not obviously comparable to existing non-zero risk elsewhere.

> it's a bastardized form of socialism.

I doubt many on HN will agree with you.

> but let's not revise history to ignore those early facts

I want to emphasize - if the history would repeat, those choices made would better be repeated. Even if SpaceX lost, US govt would be better keeping betting on new companies for the launch services, because alternatives are likely worse. In this sense SpaceX is a lucky opportunity for US.

> because they don't fit our preferred narrative of Musk being a clever paragon of capitalism.

For long time rocket startups assumed one of their customers - perhaps biggest, or the only one - would be US govt, because the US govt doesn't historically have that much of a choice. If we'd have many SpaceX-es, then, yes, a new company could worry that they could not be chosen by US govt for contracts, because their competitors are that much better - but even now it's not the case. In this sense, because Musk knew all too well US govt will need his resources he doesn't stop being "a clever paragon of capitalism".

> The simplest way of framing it is saying, "If they required taxpayer money in order to become/remain viable, it's a form of socialist intervention." I would put a lot of other companies in that list, from automotive to finance, so I'm not just picking on SpaceX.

Since this is how things work, I wouldn't even argue. I'd just say that's how things work. If you wish they'd better work differently, you'll have to provide arguments why that different way will actually be better.