The scheme tightens the grip of the state on the airwaves: a multi-state arrangement forces the public broadcaster to establish regional studios and to air a guaranteed block of regional programming every day, with separate Berlin and Brandenburg content, while expanding leadership structures. It also locks in a price tag—millions in additional costs—arguably at the expense of other programming. The courts say this can be done without sacrificing content autonomy, and the broadcaster’s leadership reform is lawful. The stated aim is stronger regional coverage and cultural representation, including Sorbian and Wendish cultures.

From a libertarian vantage point, this is classic coercive socialism masquerading as public service. Hayek would warn that central planners (in this case, a regional cartel of states) cannot know local preferences well enough to impose a one-size-regional broadcasting regime without misallocating scarce resources. The knowledge problem is severe: compelling studios, mandates, and quotas fray the spontaneous order of private media, where diversity and responsiveness to listeners emerge from voluntary exchange, not political fiat. The price tag—3.5 million euros—highlights the cost of political coordination imposed on taxpayers; in a genuine free market, such expenditures would be subjected to consumer choice, competitive pricing, and accountability, not compulsory taxation for supposedly objective culture.

Nozick would insist that taxation used to fund a public broadcaster beyond narrowly defined protective duties is a violation of individual rights. People are entitled to their property and their voluntary choices, not to be coerced into subsidizing content dictated by regional political actors. The claim of “state independence” for a broadcaster funded by compulsory fees is a paradox: independence is hollow if the purse strings are controlled by the state. The attempt to broaden directorate leadership and enforce regional quotas only widens the scope of political influence over what people are allowed to hear, see, and value, undermining the rights of taxpayers to dissent from or opt out of such programming.

Rand would call this a clear case of collectivist paternalism dressed up as culture. The idea that the state can curate “autonomy” of content while dictating production studios and quotas reveals how power corrupts judgment: editorial decisions become instruments of political compromise rather than reflections of individual judgment and voluntary association. A free society would not fund or regulate a single broadcaster as a public monopoly but would allow diverse private outlets to compete for ears and eyes. If cultural support is desired, it should come from voluntary philanthropy, consumer choice, or targeted, non-coercive funding—never from compulsory levies that compel individuals to pay for content they might not want.

The libertarian path is clear: end the compulsory funding, privatize or privatize-at-heart, and let regional culture flourish through voluntary, competitive channels. Reforms should aim to restore a market for ideas where viewers choose among privately funded stations, producers, and platforms; reduce or eliminate mandates that dictate where studios must be or how much regional content must be produced; and constrain any state involvement to the bare minimum of protecting property rights and securing voluntary contracts, not shaping culture through coercive budgets. If regional culture truly matters, it will survive—and even thrive—in a system where individuals freely support the media they value, not in a system where the state claims to know best what counts as regional or cultural significance.