5 ms·

Yes let's just have a fascist government that can seize private property because they declare it "dangerous." I see no way that could go bad.

vlovich123 2y ago
Some research may be warranted on your part before you have a kneejerk reaction. The US has nationalized businesses in the past even when those business were solvent [1]. SpaceX would of course be a larger case and much more politically fraught, but I don’t think nationalizing SpaceX automatically makes it a fascist government. Oh, and you may want to look up eminent domain. The government regularly seizes private property and even does so effectively on behalf of other private entities. If you’re actually consistent on your framing then you’d have to admit you’ve lived your whole life under what you consider a fascist government regardless of political affiliation. For example, here’s [2] Trump using the government’s eminent domain power (before he was president) to take property from another private entity. And here he is doing the same thing [3] as president. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the_United_States#Federal-government-acquired_corporations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the... [2] https://www.cato.org/commentary/donald-trumps-eminent-domain-love-nearly-cost-widow-her-house https://www.cato.org/commentary/donald-trumps-eminent-domain... [3] https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol84/iss2/3/ https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol84/iss2/3/
- fallingknife 2y ago
  Your source states that the nationalization was done either in the case where the government was owed a debt by the nationalized company or in the case of the railroads, where they were seized to ensure the continuation of a vital service where the company providing it was insolvent. Neither of these conditions apply to any of Elon Musk's companies. Eminent domain is a process where the private property is seized (with the government required to pay fair market value) in order to use that land for some public purpose that it is not currently being used for. This could potentially be done to property owned by Elon Musk, but not for the justification that he has too much power. And also it must be specifically land that is seized, not equity in a company. If congress passed a law seizing his property, or the government initiated eminent domain against all of his company's properties, it would be obvious that it was Elon Musk being targeted and not any legitimate public need for a piece of land. This is a called a bill of attainder and is unconstitutional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
rl3 2y ago
Massive conflicts of interest exist between him and foreign adversaries of the US: https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/musk-putin-secret-conversations-37e1c187 https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/musk-putin-secret-conversat... https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-envoy-says-russia-could-supply-small-nuclear-power-plant-musks-mars-2025-03-27/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-envoy-says-russia... If this were the Cold War, we'd have already seen USG freak out and move to nationalize.
- fallingknife 2y ago
  The US government's behavior when freaking out during the cold war reads like a list of things that governments shouldn't do.
  - rl3 2y ago
    You're not wrong, and I get the aversion to any [modern] precedent that nationalization sets. It's not one I'd like to see set either. I think the more reasonable crux here is why there was no clearance revocation. The guy inserted himself into geopolitics in a manner that ran counter to DoD and USG foreign policy while operating critical defense infrastructure, temporarily (with limited scope) revoking an allied nation's access[0], and being privy to secrets involving said infrastructure. If in the future we're putting SDI-like capabilities onto satellite constellations his company operates, why let someone with undeclared back-channel comms with a foremost strategic adversary be cleared on the design and operational details of something critical to US strategic defense and national security? The very adversaries that such programs are designed to counter and deter. That's before you even consider instability from doing every drug under the sun, which normally would be sufficient grounds alone. I've no doubt he believes himself to be a patriot and probably hasn't violated his oath. It's just that holding a clearance has traditionally been based on risk. Regardless, not like there's anything anyone can do about it now. To put this in perspective, Canada's wondering lately if the US is going to attempt to annex them. Should that happen, it definitely seems like a foreign policy objective of an adversary of the US, rather than one in the interests of the US. I'd like to think any reasonable person views this entire situation as nutty, regardless of what side of the aisle they're on. [0] https://apnews.com/article/spacex-ukraine-starlink-russia-air-force-fde93d9a69d7dbd1326022ecfdbc53c2 https://apnews.com/article/spacex-ukraine-starlink-russia-ai...
wavefunction 2y ago
Musk can be fairly compensated and US national security preserved via nationalization.
- nomel 2y ago
  How much is SpaceX worth? How do you even calculate that, knowing that a long term plan includes Mars colonization, astroid mining, etc, with it having a near monopoly on space transport, at the moment?
  - tombert 2y ago
    I know that they claim their long term plan is Mars colonization and asteroid mining, but frankly I think those are lies. It cost the Diablo cheater nothing to simply lie about this, they have no concrete plans on how to get to Mars or establish a colony, they still can't even get to the moon, with the deadlines being pushed back years at a time and getting increasingly more convoluted. I'd be happy enough to be wrong, if we can get people on Mars in our lifetime that would be pretty cool, but Elon lies and embellishes nearly everything, and there's basically no consequence to lying or embellishing "plans" to colonize Mars.
    - Hyperboreanal 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
    Some multiple on the last funding round (perhaps a multiple <1) would be perfectly sufficient. Declaring my company has plans to build a Dyson sphere doesn't make it suddenly worth infinity money, and even if you believe it does, that belief won't stop the US government from seizing it.
    - nomel 2y ago
      You're irrational. They had $13B revenue in 2024, and profit > $4B, with the profit of the previous two years covering ~60% of their total accumulated funding to date.
solid_fuel 2y ago
I would be much more sympathetic to this argument if we hadn't seen Musk and the other oligarchs get away with anything and everything over the past two decades. Especially now that Musk holds a position of very considerable power in the administration, and without the approval of congress. It seems to me that Musk may very well spend the next 4 years cutting everything he can from NASA, NOAA, the Post Office, and other federal agencies. Those capabilities will still be needed, and it is clear from the stated goals of those steering this administration [1] that they intend to steer as much as possible into private enterprises. Many of those enterprises are owned by Musk himself. I don't know about you, but I see a major conflict of interest with one person both guiding the privatization process and profiting from it. If we do see a case where he steers federal funds from government agencies into a private company - at the cost of the ability of our government to execute critical functions without enriching Musk himself - then I have absolutely no issue with reclaiming those capabilities. [1] https://qz.com/donald-trump-privatize-us-government-project-2025-1851752671 https://qz.com/donald-trump-privatize-us-government-project-...
- kelnos 2y ago
  Yup, I agree that this is the playbook here. Some of the cuts will just be cuts, and those services will be gone, in case where Trump's and Musk's cronies don't think they can build a profitable business around them. Others will just get pushed into private hands, and then when progressive administrations come into power, any attempt to bring those functions back into the federal government will get lobbied out of existence. If lobbyists can do comparatively low-stakes stuff like keep the IRS from sending people pre-filled tax returns, you better believe lobbyists can keep NASA, NOAA, USPS, etc. privatized once they're dismantled.
- fallingknife 2y ago
  I agree on the conflict of interest part, but that conflict can be removed by winning elections and not some authoritarian seizure of private property. If Democrats controlled the government to the point that they can seize private property, he wouldn't be in government in the first place and there would be no conflict.
ActorNightly 2y ago
This whole narrative of "big government with lots of power = bad" doesn't really apply anymore. US has shown the citizens no longer deserve the freedom that they had, because we can't be responsible with it. We do need a big powerful government full of Democrats to run things. US economy grew under democratic agenda, and Democrats have proven that they actually do give a fuck about the country, so they should have more power to unilaterally exact laws and legislation without trying to appeal to the Republican voter base. Because if you want to make the argument that this will tank the economy as free market capitalism is reigned in, that also doesn't fly considering the economy is being tanked right now. The difference is, under Dems, once things stabilize, everyone will be better off.
- fallingknife 2y ago
  You are why I vote Republican
  - kelnos 2y ago
    Ah yes, the classic "your rhetoric annoys me so I'll instead vote to burn everything down and I don't care who gets hurt in the process". Good reasoning, there.
    - fallingknife 2y ago
      Annoyance has nothing to do with it. It is the authoritarian morally superior attitude expressed by this statement that is so prevalent among Democrats. > they should have more power to unilaterally exact laws and legislation without trying to appeal to the Republican voter base > US has shown the citizens no longer deserve the freedom that they had,
      - pritambaral 2y ago
        As opposed to the morally superior actions of ... the other party so gleefully dismantling your country for a fire sale to the oligarchs.
kelnos 2y ago
Is it a "fascist government seizing private property" if Congress votes to nationalize a company, as is laid out in law, and the president signs the resulting bill into law?
- Ray20 2y ago
  I mean yeas, that is a typical fascist strategy.
  - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
    Also a typical strategy in every other form of government, oddly enough.

vlovich123 2y ago

Some research may be warranted on your part before you have a kneejerk reaction. The US has nationalized businesses in the past even when those business were solvent [1]. SpaceX would of course be a larger case and much more politically fraught, but I don’t think nationalizing SpaceX automatically makes it a fascist government. Oh, and you may want to look up eminent domain. The government regularly seizes private property and even does so effectively on behalf of other private entities. If you’re actually consistent on your framing then you’d have to admit you’ve lived your whole life under what you consider a fascist government regardless of political affiliation. For example, here’s [2] Trump using the government’s eminent domain power (before he was president) to take property from another private entity. And here he is doing the same thing [3] as president. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the_United_States#Federal-government-acquired_corporations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the... [2] https://www.cato.org/commentary/donald-trumps-eminent-domain-love-nearly-cost-widow-her-house https://www.cato.org/commentary/donald-trumps-eminent-domain... [3] https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol84/iss2/3/ https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol84/iss2/3/

fallingknife 2y ago
Your source states that the nationalization was done either in the case where the government was owed a debt by the nationalized company or in the case of the railroads, where they were seized to ensure the continuation of a vital service where the company providing it was insolvent. Neither of these conditions apply to any of Elon Musk's companies. Eminent domain is a process where the private property is seized (with the government required to pay fair market value) in order to use that land for some public purpose that it is not currently being used for. This could potentially be done to property owned by Elon Musk, but not for the justification that he has too much power. And also it must be specifically land that is seized, not equity in a company. If congress passed a law seizing his property, or the government initiated eminent domain against all of his company's properties, it would be obvious that it was Elon Musk being targeted and not any legitimate public need for a piece of land. This is a called a bill of attainder and is unconstitutional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

rl3 2y ago

Massive conflicts of interest exist between him and foreign adversaries of the US: https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/musk-putin-secret-conversations-37e1c187 https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/musk-putin-secret-conversat... https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-envoy-says-russia-could-supply-small-nuclear-power-plant-musks-mars-2025-03-27/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-envoy-says-russia... If this were the Cold War, we'd have already seen USG freak out and move to nationalize.

fallingknife 2y ago
The US government's behavior when freaking out during the cold war reads like a list of things that governments shouldn't do.
- rl3 2y ago
  You're not wrong, and I get the aversion to any [modern] precedent that nationalization sets. It's not one I'd like to see set either. I think the more reasonable crux here is why there was no clearance revocation. The guy inserted himself into geopolitics in a manner that ran counter to DoD and USG foreign policy while operating critical defense infrastructure, temporarily (with limited scope) revoking an allied nation's access[0], and being privy to secrets involving said infrastructure. If in the future we're putting SDI-like capabilities onto satellite constellations his company operates, why let someone with undeclared back-channel comms with a foremost strategic adversary be cleared on the design and operational details of something critical to US strategic defense and national security? The very adversaries that such programs are designed to counter and deter. That's before you even consider instability from doing every drug under the sun, which normally would be sufficient grounds alone. I've no doubt he believes himself to be a patriot and probably hasn't violated his oath. It's just that holding a clearance has traditionally been based on risk. Regardless, not like there's anything anyone can do about it now. To put this in perspective, Canada's wondering lately if the US is going to attempt to annex them. Should that happen, it definitely seems like a foreign policy objective of an adversary of the US, rather than one in the interests of the US. I'd like to think any reasonable person views this entire situation as nutty, regardless of what side of the aisle they're on. [0] https://apnews.com/article/spacex-ukraine-starlink-russia-air-force-fde93d9a69d7dbd1326022ecfdbc53c2 https://apnews.com/article/spacex-ukraine-starlink-russia-ai...

wavefunction 2y ago

Musk can be fairly compensated and US national security preserved via nationalization.

nomel 2y ago
How much is SpaceX worth? How do you even calculate that, knowing that a long term plan includes Mars colonization, astroid mining, etc, with it having a near monopoly on space transport, at the moment?
- tombert 2y ago
  I know that they claim their long term plan is Mars colonization and asteroid mining, but frankly I think those are lies. It cost the Diablo cheater nothing to simply lie about this, they have no concrete plans on how to get to Mars or establish a colony, they still can't even get to the moon, with the deadlines being pushed back years at a time and getting increasingly more convoluted. I'd be happy enough to be wrong, if we can get people on Mars in our lifetime that would be pretty cool, but Elon lies and embellishes nearly everything, and there's basically no consequence to lying or embellishing "plans" to colonize Mars.
  - Hyperboreanal 2y ago
    [flagged]
- sorcerer-mar 2y ago
  Some multiple on the last funding round (perhaps a multiple <1) would be perfectly sufficient. Declaring my company has plans to build a Dyson sphere doesn't make it suddenly worth infinity money, and even if you believe it does, that belief won't stop the US government from seizing it.
  - nomel 2y ago
    You're irrational. They had $13B revenue in 2024, and profit > $4B, with the profit of the previous two years covering ~60% of their total accumulated funding to date.

solid_fuel 2y ago

I would be much more sympathetic to this argument if we hadn't seen Musk and the other oligarchs get away with anything and everything over the past two decades. Especially now that Musk holds a position of very considerable power in the administration, and without the approval of congress. It seems to me that Musk may very well spend the next 4 years cutting everything he can from NASA, NOAA, the Post Office, and other federal agencies. Those capabilities will still be needed, and it is clear from the stated goals of those steering this administration [1] that they intend to steer as much as possible into private enterprises. Many of those enterprises are owned by Musk himself. I don't know about you, but I see a major conflict of interest with one person both guiding the privatization process and profiting from it. If we do see a case where he steers federal funds from government agencies into a private company - at the cost of the ability of our government to execute critical functions without enriching Musk himself - then I have absolutely no issue with reclaiming those capabilities. [1] https://qz.com/donald-trump-privatize-us-government-project-2025-1851752671 https://qz.com/donald-trump-privatize-us-government-project-...

kelnos 2y ago
Yup, I agree that this is the playbook here. Some of the cuts will just be cuts, and those services will be gone, in case where Trump's and Musk's cronies don't think they can build a profitable business around them. Others will just get pushed into private hands, and then when progressive administrations come into power, any attempt to bring those functions back into the federal government will get lobbied out of existence. If lobbyists can do comparatively low-stakes stuff like keep the IRS from sending people pre-filled tax returns, you better believe lobbyists can keep NASA, NOAA, USPS, etc. privatized once they're dismantled.
fallingknife 2y ago
I agree on the conflict of interest part, but that conflict can be removed by winning elections and not some authoritarian seizure of private property. If Democrats controlled the government to the point that they can seize private property, he wouldn't be in government in the first place and there would be no conflict.

ActorNightly 2y ago

This whole narrative of "big government with lots of power = bad" doesn't really apply anymore. US has shown the citizens no longer deserve the freedom that they had, because we can't be responsible with it. We do need a big powerful government full of Democrats to run things. US economy grew under democratic agenda, and Democrats have proven that they actually do give a fuck about the country, so they should have more power to unilaterally exact laws and legislation without trying to appeal to the Republican voter base. Because if you want to make the argument that this will tank the economy as free market capitalism is reigned in, that also doesn't fly considering the economy is being tanked right now. The difference is, under Dems, once things stabilize, everyone will be better off.

fallingknife 2y ago
You are why I vote Republican
- kelnos 2y ago
  Ah yes, the classic "your rhetoric annoys me so I'll instead vote to burn everything down and I don't care who gets hurt in the process". Good reasoning, there.
  - fallingknife 2y ago
    Annoyance has nothing to do with it. It is the authoritarian morally superior attitude expressed by this statement that is so prevalent among Democrats. > they should have more power to unilaterally exact laws and legislation without trying to appeal to the Republican voter base > US has shown the citizens no longer deserve the freedom that they had,
    - pritambaral 2y ago
      As opposed to the morally superior actions of ... the other party so gleefully dismantling your country for a fire sale to the oligarchs.

kelnos 2y ago

Is it a "fascist government seizing private property" if Congress votes to nationalize a company, as is laid out in law, and the president signs the resulting bill into law?

Ray20 2y ago
I mean yeas, that is a typical fascist strategy.
- sorcerer-mar 2y ago
  Also a typical strategy in every other form of government, oddly enough.