SpaceX received government money and resources through NASA as part of the outsourcing program that's always been there ever since Apollo.
Nope. SpaceX did not get resources from NASA yet and is not the usual part of NASA's outsourcing program.
SpaceX was founded in 2002 by Elon Musk, before there was any talk of the COTS program, and even before STS-107 which introduced the foreseeable end of the Shuttle program. The goal of Elon Musk was to lower the costs for space launches by doing it without unnecessary bureaucracy. He succeeded. And very important in this context: SpaceX is a small company (especially founded for efficient space flight systems) with ~1000 employees, vs. 15000 employees for the ATK Launch Systems Group and 160000 employees for Boeing for example. There are huge differences.
Beside its own launch complex and buildings in Hawthorne California, SpaceX got SLC-40 at the Cape from the Air Force for opearting Falcon 9 from the Cape. But they demolished the old tower and buildings due to build and use their own hardware and buildings. Also, Falcon and Dragon are independent proprietary concepts and developments by SpaceX, tested by SpaceX (by using their own facilities and hardware) and operated by SpaceX, and not by NASA. The development costs for both, Falcon 9 and Dragon, were less than 300 million dollars by the way (vs. 9 billion USD for an unfinsihed, second-stage-less NASA rocket - Ares 1). SpaceX gets money from NASA for ISS support missions. No more, no less. NASA did not design and does not operate SpaceX's hardware like they did with the Space Shuttle, Apollo hardware etc. That's something totally different. It's a complete outsourcing this time and for now. SpaceX designed, built and now operates its hardware for NASA but also for other commercial usage. Remember that SpaceX got the biggest commercial contract in space flight history for carrying the Iridium satellites into orbit (nearly 500 million USD).
SpaceX is a vivid example of how to do space flight by less costs due to unnecessary bureaucracy and big expensive structures. NASA wouldn't ever perform 12 ISS supply missions to the ISS on their own by such low costs SpaceX can offer. One can get about 17 Falcon 9 launches for the costs of one Shuttle launch, whilst one Ares 1 launch would have been more expensive than one Shuttle launch by carrying 50% less payload.
As for knowledge: NASA succeeded based on the knowledge of Wernher von Braun and his team as well as other American engineers and scientists back then in the late 1950's and 1960's. Just like Russia succeeded even before the USA because of German and Russian engineers and scientists back then. These days knowledge is widely available indeed. But rocket science is not just there because NASA is just there. Without NASA, Russia would be the leading space country. But the future of space flight is going to look different than in the past anyway. It was for sure that one day space flight is being more and more commercialized. And it's still just the very beginning.
A good example for bureaucracy also is the chinese space program by the way. They launch rockets for 50 years and satellites into orbit for 40 years now. They intend to do manned space flight for more than 40 years and now test flying their system for more than 10 years. SpaceX did reach orbit within only 6 years after foundation (without money and resources from NASA as Falcon 1 is not part of the COTS program), and returning a capsule from space only 8 years after foundation.
Specifically in the case of manned space missions, safety and caution are paramount and cutting corners by non-selectively dismissing bureaucracy can be regarded as reckelessness.
The problem is that increasing bureaucracy does not increase safety endlessly. Just like NASA people and observers of that "business" already say, NASA's bureaucracy i.e. requirements exceeds the optimal point of safety. But that's not all. There are also structural issues. NASA wastes a lot of money for their manned program which actually is assigned for science and research. It's basically mismanagement and wrong political decisions, and it's not because I say so but because those issues are well known, and which have caused the end of Constellation just as one example.
Losing Astronaut lives is just not worth the satisfaction of recklessly bashing NASA!
Space Flight can be as safe as commercial aviation, and even a little safer, without too much bureaucracy involved. Guess why things like vaccination, but also flight security etc. has been already outsourced, at least in Germany (the densely used German airspace qualifies as one of the safest). A state never is a good businessman.
