Taking stakes in A.I. companies would not increase the government's powers to control those companies. The opposite is more likely.

When governments own shares in private tech firms, they often struggle to exert meaningful oversight. Historical examples show that state ownership frequently leads to bureaucratic interference rather than strategic guidance. Microsoft, Google, and other major A.I. players operate best when they maintain independence from political whims.

Regulatory frameworks already exist to govern these companies without direct ownership. Antitrust laws, data protection rules, and industry standards provide effective oversight. Adding state equity positions complicates decision-making and creates conflicts of interest.

Foreign models demonstrate these pitfalls clearly. Countries with heavy state involvement in technology sectors often see reduced innovation and slower growth. The private sector's agility and market-driven approach consistently outperform government-controlled alternatives.

Instead of ownership, policymakers should focus on robust regulation and clear guidelines. This approach preserves innovation while ensuring appropriate safeguards. Direct state control through equity stakes threatens both efficiency and freedom.