4 ms·
When the billionaires control the public square, you can be pretty sure they're controlling the government too. So there's no difference between these two scena
by notacoward 5y ago
When the billionaires control the public square, you can be pretty sure they're controlling the government too. So there's no difference between these two scenarios.
- willnonya 5y agoThats a bit detached from reality. Conflating a billionaire spending their money for something that as far as youre co cerned is a different proposition to something the governement can madate and control through their monopoly on force.
- gibolt 5y agoEspecially when the government is actively working against this specific billionaire, promoting and funneling money only to their competitors (even foreign ones, via tax credit) They only work happily with SpaceX because it saves them potentially billions per year (and often there is no other option).
- kevingadd 5y agoPlenty of the laws passed by American legislatures are literally written by corporate lobbyists and promoted by the corporate media, yeah.
- CWuestefeld 5y agoIs the corollary to this that if we ever see some faction largely controlling that public square, we can assume that they're also controlling the government?
- emteycz 5y agoNot at all. To me it seems like what people on Twitter say has basically zero relevance to what's happening IRL.
- forty 5y agoI wonder how long it will take for Musk to run for the Whitehouse. Such a good way to have people talk about him even more, he cannot not do it.
- tristor 5y agoMusk can never be the POTUS, because he's not a natural-born US citizen.
- inglor_cz 5y agoWell, at least not until the Constitution is amended to remove that requirement. But it is not likely, I agree.
- CWuestefeld 5y agoHe cannot do it. The Constitution places a few limitations on who can be President. One of these is that you must be a natural-born US citizen.
- forty 5y agoWow that's a very bad law. I wonder if changing the constitution will cost him less than buying Twitter.
- CWuestefeld 5y agoWow that's a very bad law. I don't think so at all. The system is designed so that the American people, in the framework of the system, make it run. There's no need to worry that we only got the 2nd best person in the job, because we're not counting on their excellence to work miracles for us. While on the other side of the coin, it's still possible for a bad actor in that position to wreak a lot of damage (especially given the historical erosion of controls on government action and the gradual abdication of Congressional oversight). So it's more important to avert a potential disaster, then to avoid the cost of missing our one potential savior.