This is almost a non-sensical statement as the state injects itself into every market and is by definition unavoidable. You could argue that the state subsidized Uber by handing a monopoly to the taxi industry, who's complacency created an opportunity for improvement. Doesn't mean government support is by any means required or necessary.

States are required in markets (as we understand them) fundamentally for protection over the transaction. History shows if you remove the state you end up with inter tribal economies where arbitrary homicide is a "valid" outcome of exchange (organized crime is a good predictor here). Not sure what you're advocating exactly though, so you could be right on different terms.

>A lot of what Musk is doing now is deeply dependent on government support.

That's in the nature of car manufacturing. If one government starts subsidizing a high capex industry, others have to follow suit or throw up trade barriers or their industries will drop off a cliff.

This has been going on since at least the 50s when Japan threw monumental sums of cash at its (at the time), pathetic and failing car industry.

Aerospace is similar. Best of luck trying to create a competitor to Boeing or Airbus unless you have the backing of the Chinese state. No amount of magic pixie startup fairy dust is going to get you there.