Prompt: “Is it possible to have state subsidies without state control?”
In theory its possible, but in actuality much of the money would be wasted. What subsidies actually are is the government taxing one group of people and redistributing the wealth to another. If a business continues to receive government funding, and doesn’t have any requirements of how those funds should be handled then corruption and greed can grow within the company.
We read a paper on this that compares the state to a father, and the subsidy recipient to a child asking for allowance. If the father gives him that money, but than doesn’t give any rules of how it is to be used more likely than not the money will go to waste. The child squanders their allowance if the parent doesn’t lay down the law. But on the flip side this metaphor is comparing the general public to a profligate child. And saying that the “father” is the only one who knows an economical way of spending money. Most people are much more competent and self-sustaining than we give them credit for, and many use their assets in creative and productive ways that earn them more money in the end. But there are also many easily influenced by greed, who can become corrupt if overfunded.
By asking the state for subsidies we are agreeing to their rules and letting them maintain power. Because of this state subsidies and state control go hand and hand. The government is never going to give out money without keeping a strict eye over where that money goes.
In conclusion if the people and businesses continue asking the state for subsidies the state is always going to maintain control over those subsidies. It will continue taxing and redistributing, it will continue to make the laws, and we will continue to follow them. If we want the state to have less control over our money than we need to become more self reliant, and build enough income for ourselves that we don’t need to ask for state subsidies.