There's a lot to criticize, but this argument seems extremely misleading to me. The government wants to put things into space. SpaceX says "this is how much we're willing to take to do so" and bids on the government contract to do so. Notably, this is drastically cheaper launch pricing than the Space Shuttle and whatever other venues NASA had. These weren't R&D grants which are more arguable.
The government spent drastically more money on the space shuttle (which is widely acknowledged as a mistake of a design) than what the private industry ended up delivering.
It’s rent vs build and I’m not so sure the government benefits so much from owning space shuttles. But arguing that the government purchasing launch volume is the same as them buying the R&D for the shuttles is not a logical coherent and consistent position.
For what it’s worth a common refrain I’ve heard from people who hold your position is that government patents are also the property of the people. So not only does the government spend a lot on R&D, in such a model it’s incapable of monetizing this R&D as a way to recoup those expenses.
