We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink
Technology
496
Beiträge
196
Kommentatoren
4.0k
Aufrufe
-
The post title starts with “we”, which means everyone, it doesn’t limit those involved to one country.
Yes, and the post title is just the title of the article
-
Yes, and the post title is just the title of the article
I’m just saying it wouldn’t hurt to make things clear when posting the article link to a global website.
-
Yes, that's why no one in this entire thread suggested anything even remotely close to this. it's stupid, and a stupid strawman.
The guy that I replied said that we should nationalize any company that receives tax dollars if we depend on it... Buts that case for virtually the entire economy. Everything is touch by our tax dollars and everything in our economy is intertwined. It is a ridiculous suggestion.
Nationalizing spaceX temporarily in order to restore confidence in it's largest, most important customer, after that customer's trust has been repeatedly violated by the executive and the board that keeps him in power, is NOT NATIONALIZING THE ENTIRE ECONOMY nor would it be untoward if Boeing or Lockheed's CEO was dumb enough to engage in this bullshit.
The government doesn't nationalize on the behalf of companies, it only temporarily nationalizes when to protect the American economy at large. For example, in 2008 the government took hold of a bunch of auto companies to prevent a collapse of this sector. This is not happening here for SpaceX so it doesn't make sense to do it.
The thing is you would actually have a really good case to temporarily nationalize Boeing because it is basically our entire commercial plane manufacturing sector, and it's quickly heading towards collapse. This is a case where it makes sense. Starlink and SpaceX don't fall under this umbrella.
you genuinely don't care that critical national infrastructure - literally our ability to put stuff into orbit - is compromised by this penny ante shitbird. I get it, fanboys don't use logic.
-
It seems like you don't know what that term means
Sure thing sport. I must be a tankie lol. You toolbag
-
Starlink should be globalized. A planet only needs one low-altitude orbiting communications network. Better to standardize the technology and platform and let them contribute to one system than to have a dozen identical competing systems crashing into each other and fucking things up for everyone.
There is no such thing as something being "globalized" The UN for instance is a debating club where the majority of the seats represent individual dictators who dominate but do not speak for their countries citizens.
The idea of 50 countries collectively providing 0% of the funds should determine the mission is somewhat laughable. Also no country on earth has a process by which foreign dictators can seize or direct a company run out of their nation.
-
Arrest Musk on violation of controlled substances acts, file immigration violation charges, invalidate his ownership shares due to securities fraud, as he falsified education and naturalization forms.
Or just emminent domain the shit. The Law is just made up right now.
Such an effort would be likely to fail AND take longer than the current administration is likely to exist.
-
Sure thing sport. I must be a tankie lol. You toolbag
A strawman is when somebody mischaracterize an argument, calling someone a tankie is not that.
-
This post did not contain any content.
No, we should regain control of our nation from fascists (this does not mean just replace the President), then nationalize SpaceX and Starlink, and make telecoms public utilities.
-
you genuinely don't care that critical national infrastructure - literally our ability to put stuff into orbit - is compromised by this penny ante shitbird. I get it, fanboys don't use logic.
I don't like Elon, fuck him. My point is that what you're asking for is setting a precedent we never had. We've always had complimentary system between the private and public sectors, most countries are like this as well. Nationalizing companies without a genuine justification is going to cause shock waves throughout the economy. Why would investors spend capital in the country if the government can snatch up their business the moment they're deemed important? If that's the only thing needed to nationalize companies, what's stopping idiots in government like Trump from just weaponizing it by nationalizing any company that competes with his own businesses, political opponents, or his crony friends? Not to mention, where is confidence that our incompetent government is going to manage these companies better than they can manage themselves? These are all really big questions.
There's a reason why nationalization is left as a temporary last resort measure to rescue economic sectors from collapse. You could make an argument that this would apply for a publicly traded company like Boeing that's quickly heading towards collapse. Considering how they're only commercial plane manufacturer, that means they're our entire industry. The company's stability is a matter of national security. But SpaceX? None of this applies.
SpaceX is a private business that's stable, reliable, and competitive. They're doing exactly what they're supposed to. It's easy to say that we should just nationalize companies without thinking about the consequences. I'm in favor of things like universal healthcare, public transit systems, and more power to our research agencies. But these things have to come to fruition through stronger regulations and government alternatives, not nationalization. If there are cases where a company has to be nationalized and there are no alternatives, then they should be bought out.
I don't think what I'm saying is controversial.
-
This post did not contain any content.
No I would not like taxpayer dollars to buy out Elons shit shows.
Hard pass. Thanks no thanks jacobin
-
After Russia brutally suppressed their independence, then sent 10 million of them off to die to protect Russians. Which you keep wilfully ignoring.
Ukrainians didn't want to be under Russian rule. It's wild the mental gymnastics you're doing to excuse Russia allying with Hitler himself to steal foreign land. So I'll say again, the fact those regions were mistreated under Poland does mean it's okay to invade them and colonise them.
Like you can find examples of time were colonial countries """liberated""" foreign nations in much the same way, putting them under a different boot and treating them marginally better than the last guy. But if a colonial apologist gave you that argument you would (rightly) not accept it, would you?
Ukrainians didn't want to be under Russian rule.
The Secretary General Nikita Khruschyov of the Soviet Union was Ukrainian... The claims of Russification of the Soviet Union are wildly exaggerated by western sources as proven by the fact that Kazakhstan is its own country with its own culture, as are Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine, Belarus...
mental gymnastics you're doing to excuse Russia allying with Hitler
go ahead. Answer point by point to my comment that i showed you, I'm looking forward to that instead of vibes-based claims.
Like you can find examples of time were colonial countries """liberated""" foreign nations in much the same way, putting them under a different boot and treating them marginally better than the last guy
What's the life expectancy in Russia or China vs what is it in Indonesia or Myanmar? What's the le expectancy in Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan compared to Afghanistan or Pakistan?
-
Yeah, it sure can do it in a way nobody else can, the most wasteful way. But I appreciate you shifting the goalposts from Ukraine because being used in war is a reason why it is a bad ISP. See, if a war breaks out and a power can destroy them, we're talking global breakdown of internet via starlink. If a war breaks out on the other side of the world a traditional isp keeps working.
Then there's also the piss poor service, the poor number of total connections, the lack of redundancy, the cost, the ecological damage of launching rockets every week so that someone is the middle of nowhere can jack it with high speed internet, being disabled when a nazi feels like it...
Where am I shifting the goalposts exactly?
"because being used in war is a reason why it is a bad ISP", like I said before, I very much doubt the Ukrainians would agree with your take on this.
"if a war breaks out and a power can destroy them, we’re talking global breakdown of internet via starlink" ??
Do you think anyone is advocating we should replace all internet connections with Starlink?"Then there’s also the piss poor service, the poor number of total connections, the lack of redundancy, the cost," Should I copy-paste about Ukraine again?
"ecological damage" negligent amount compared to actually wasteful industries
-
Dude… nationalize just means the US takes ownership of the company. They keep all the employees they keep all the customers. It runs like normal under new ownership. The taxpayers now own it. it’s a great idea.
You see too long we have been using public funding and allowing rich people to privatize the gains. It’s time to privatize those games and take back what we invested in as US citizens. We will still offer you eurocucks Internet since apparently it is more important than having a moral fiber in your body
I didn't say it was a bad thing, I wanted to know about some of the broader implications, e.g. govt ownership doesn't remove legal obligations. I doubt the govt could continue to offer service under the previous T&C, some sections would need revision. And Starlink's T&C are slightly different in some countries, as are the operating conditions. Some countries who are nominally friendly with Starlink/SpaceX to allow ground stations, POPs, etc, might not be so keen on the US govt controlling things.
These are just some of the things that popped into my head when I read the article.
-
Jacobin is a late 18th early 19th political spectrum. It is not relevant to this situation.
Friend, the magazine this article is from is named Jacobin, after that political movement.
It is a US-based magazine, and it's not very popular, so it's understandable that you haven't heard of it. But it does pay to read the article before commenting.
-
A strawman is when somebody mischaracterize an argument, calling someone a tankie is not that.
sure thing bud. I'm not going to waste my afternoon going through your shitstream to point out how you're wrong, I simply have better things to do with my life. in fact, gonna block you now, QOL plus
-
I don't like Elon, fuck him. My point is that what you're asking for is setting a precedent we never had. We've always had complimentary system between the private and public sectors, most countries are like this as well. Nationalizing companies without a genuine justification is going to cause shock waves throughout the economy. Why would investors spend capital in the country if the government can snatch up their business the moment they're deemed important? If that's the only thing needed to nationalize companies, what's stopping idiots in government like Trump from just weaponizing it by nationalizing any company that competes with his own businesses, political opponents, or his crony friends? Not to mention, where is confidence that our incompetent government is going to manage these companies better than they can manage themselves? These are all really big questions.
There's a reason why nationalization is left as a temporary last resort measure to rescue economic sectors from collapse. You could make an argument that this would apply for a publicly traded company like Boeing that's quickly heading towards collapse. Considering how they're only commercial plane manufacturer, that means they're our entire industry. The company's stability is a matter of national security. But SpaceX? None of this applies.
SpaceX is a private business that's stable, reliable, and competitive. They're doing exactly what they're supposed to. It's easy to say that we should just nationalize companies without thinking about the consequences. I'm in favor of things like universal healthcare, public transit systems, and more power to our research agencies. But these things have to come to fruition through stronger regulations and government alternatives, not nationalization. If there are cases where a company has to be nationalized and there are no alternatives, then they should be bought out.
I don't think what I'm saying is controversial.
I don’t think what I’m saying is controversial.
no, it's simply business as usual, nothing ever changes, nothing ever improves, and fuck you america, that's the way it has to be because reasons.
I strongly suspect NASA can manage spaceX better than the ketamine kid. Why don't you give a fuck about those astronauts who have to put their faith in his hardware? why don't you give a fuck about the kids who are growing up in an age where that drug addled prick is put up as an icon of success?
Do you really think soldiers sailors and airmen (and spacemonkeys) should have to rely on that HORSE DRUG ADDICTED PRICK for their mission critical infrastructure?
If you do, fuck right off, you're either a musk fanboy or stockholder.
Either way, get bent.
-
That's not putting eggs in a basket, that's just wasteful government as always. The same government that you guys want to take control of SpaceX lol.
ok freedumb, I get it, you're not reading, just responding. gonna block you now
-
If the government actually nationalized SpaceX, the precedent would be insane. You’d be telling every private company working in defense, infrastructure, or tech that if they become too essential, the government might just take it. Doesn’t matter how much risk or capital they fronted.
SpaceX isn’t just launching rockets for fun—it’s practically a branch of the U.S. space program at this point. GPS, Starlink for military comms, launching classified payloads, putting astronauts in orbit. If we nationalize that over a political pissing match between Trump and Musk, we’re basically saying innovation is conditional on obedience.
And let’s be honest—once you do this to SpaceX, you open the door to doing it to AWS, Tesla’s energy grid systems, Google’s AI infrastructure. Any private company that gets too important suddenly becomes “too critical to stay private.” That’s a fast track to killing private innovation in sectors where we need it most.
If Trump’s threatening funding, and Musk is threatening to walk, and the public’s response is “just take the company,” then we’ve officially politicized the tech-industrial base. That’s not governance, that’s dysfunction.
Nationalizing SpaceX would be a Cold War move in a modern economy. It might feel good in the moment, but long-term, it's a terrible idea.
how can you be so casually apathetic about saddling our soldiers sailors airmen and spaceforce with the products of a horse drug addled asshole?
What kind of prick tells these people VOLUNTEERING TO DEFEND YOUR COUNTRY "hey man, the ketamine kid is the only way!" - how are you comfortable or confident in the products produced when he's tripping balls in the oval office?
meh. this is a pointless argument, I'm never going to convince these elon fanboys their hero is a prick
-
how can you be so casually apathetic about saddling our soldiers sailors airmen and spaceforce with the products of a horse drug addled asshole?
What kind of prick tells these people VOLUNTEERING TO DEFEND YOUR COUNTRY "hey man, the ketamine kid is the only way!" - how are you comfortable or confident in the products produced when he's tripping balls in the oval office?
meh. this is a pointless argument, I'm never going to convince these elon fanboys their hero is a prick
I'm sorry were you talking to me? Because nothing in your response had anything to do with what I actually said.
I never claimed to like Elon. I don’t.
I never expressed support for this administration’s policies. I don’t.My argument is about the moral, ethical, and historically dangerous precedent of nationalizing a private company.
That drug-addled sycophant stood before the most powerful political body on Earth wearing a baseball cap and a T-shirt while the Vice President of the United States told President Zelensky to put on a suit.
Unbelievable.
Where the hell do you get off making wild, baseless assumptions about things you barely understand? What exactly prevents you from engaging in civil discourse like an adult, instead of spouting off like you did in that comment?
Fine if we’re slinging assumptions now, here’s mine:
You strike me as a fedora-wearing, vape-huffing, woman-hating neckbeard. Am I wrong? Don’t care. That’s the image your words paint. -
This post did not contain any content.
A lot of people are calling this a bailout for Elon, but in reality it would be a seizure. Elon doesn't want to let go of Starlink and the US likely wouldn't pay him what it's worth to take it over.
What people seem to be missing is the precedent this would set. It's all well and good when we empower the office of the president to seize a private company we don't like, but after we give them that power what's to stop them from seizing other businesses?
XYZ company refuses to get rid of their DEI policy because the shareholders voted to keep it? Well now the orange man can seize it.
Let's not forget that previously it took 2/3rd majority to confirm presidential appointments, but the Senate under Obama decided to change that rule to 50% to get past Republican objections. The result of this is all these shit appointments Trump has passed with 51% of the Senate, none of them would have gotten by if the Democrats hadn't made a precedent for changing the rules.
