Well, that is certainly not what I was implying. I was trying to say some government is good, some business is good, OTOH, too much government is bad and too much unregulated business is bad.
There's a point on the curve there that is probably the most efficient, and I would argue the left/right (as we generally think of it) is usually just a difference of opinion on where that point falls. This doesn't include extreme approaches like Marxism or Libertarianism, but I don't really know any real people who actually believe in those approaches.
There's a lot of Marxism that I think isnt extreme and makes perfect sense, although honestly Marx is more about what will replace reigion and where will it spring from than anything else, he's one of a dozen or so writers who thought much more of philosophy than was probably a good idea / deserved, it was to be "the answer" if it was phony and amounted to something more / other than a derivative of ruling class excuses, tastes, explanations.
When people think of Marxism they just mean central planning for the most part or command economies, every state engages in that, those that dont get bought off or otherwise neutralized by those that do, when attempts have been made to marketize something like defence for instance it inevitably fucks up, movies like War Dogs, Lord of War, Best Defence, they're just the tip of the iceberg.
Libertarianism, of the Von Mise type, I would say IS extreme, precisely because it, even more so than "actual existing marxism", really, really ignores how far from theory the reality has strayed in any and all economies that have bothered to try out their thinking in the most literal senses they can think of. Very, very quickly you've got the very, very worst example of private tyrannies emerging, I'm not talking about "Hood" or "Meth" - onomics either, most capitalism has more to do with Capone than Smith these days, but something much worse, pretty much unknown outside of stateless societies in the third world. The best the apologists can muster as a defence is that its got to do with race, ethnicity or ethno-culture.
The rapid concentrations of wealth and power in either central planning or its private equivalent is bad news, it tends towards a kind of absolutism which can not and will not self-correct, anyone who has had a bad boss or worked in a firm were its been inherited by the boss' son or daughter and they've no other qualification for their role than the fortune of being born into that family at that time, knows you hope and pray for a demographic shift, sickness or chance or something to switch it up. There's some eastern european saying about "it is good that people die" or something like that meaning that nothing persists indefinitely, not even tyrannies, minor or major.
Though, I do think the idea of a "balance" between public-private even misses the point, discussions about mixed economies, socialism vs capitalism (or socialism and capitalism) etc. all miss the point. What even is it about the this supposed "balance", what is the substance or nature of it, that makes for a better outcome? I think its the same tendencies that screw things up, whether its labelled one way or another, which no one really talks about, or when they do its bogus, engaging in some sort of stupid reductive, identity politics and tossing labels about.
