47
Elon Musk’s Shadow Rule (www.newyorker.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

So your rationale for seizing a private company is that it is better than its competitors?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    No, it’s that as an effective monopoly, it has unreasonable power over the government.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    You're 17 years too late to use that argument in good faith. Not only is SpaceX not a monopoly (because there are many other companies you can buy launch services from in the USA) but because that wasn't the case in 2006 when Boeing and Lockheed (with USA government consent!) created a TRUE launch monopoly by merging to create ULA (United Launch Alliance).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I’m not strictly arguing for federalization, but you’re arguing through whataboutism. And SpaceX is an effective monopoly. Otherwise we’d use other launch services at least some significant amount.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    I’m not strictly arguing for federalization,

    You're replying to the thread where the OP wanted to nationalized SpaceX. I haven't heard you say different. What are you proposing instead?

    but you’re arguing through whataboutism.

    No, I'm citing precedent. Its extremely applicable because its the exact same industry, and even existed before SpaceX. .

    And SpaceX is an effective monopoly. Otherwise we’d use other launch services at least some significant amount.

    I don't think you follow spaceflight very much if you hold this statement. I'm assuming the "we" you're using here means US government launch.

    Here's US government launches that ULA did in 2022 and 2023 so far: 7 launches

    Delta IV Heavy | NROL-68 United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA June 22, 2023, 9:18 a.m.

    Delta IV Heavy | NROL-91 United Launch Alliance | USA Vandenberg SFB, CA, USA Sept. 24, 2022, 10:25 p.m.

    Atlas V 421 | SBIRS GEO-6 United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA Aug. 4, 2022, 10:29 a.m.

    Atlas V 541 | USSF-12 United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA July 1, 2022, 11:15 p.m.

    Atlas V N22 | CST-100 Starliner Orbital Flight Test 2 (OFT-2) United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA May 19, 2022, 6:54 p.m.

    Atlas V 541 | GOES-T United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA March 1, 2022, 9:38 p.m.

    Atlas V 511 | USSF-8 United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA Jan. 21, 2022, 7 p.m.

    source

    How is SpaceX am "effective" monopoly?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    I was arguing a point, not a position.

    And SpaceX is literally the only means by which the US is able to send astronauts to the ISS currently. StarLink is a strategically critical service for military and probably other purposes.

    Precedent does not intrinsically imply merit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    And SpaceX is literally the only means by which the US is able to send astronauts to the ISS currently.

    Incorrect. The US can and does send astronauts on Soyuz. One of the astronauts currently on the ISS arrived on Soyuz. Additionally, the US chose this path irrespective of companies and vendors when they chose to stop flying the Space Shuttle. You can't blame SpaceX for being successful and Boeing for being unsuccessful as justification to seize a private company.

    StarLink is a strategically critical service for military and probably other purposes.

    That is true state for hundreds of services providing by private companies to the US government. Why aren't you arguing to seize or nationalize those?

    I was arguing a point, not a position.

    So this whole thing is an exercise in pedantry?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Look, you seem like a pretty intelligent person from your post history. Arguing a point instead of a position isn’t pedantry, it’s precision. You seem really worked up about this and I understand why, because forced federalization is a very dangerous and slippery slope. So it’s probably just best for us both to walk away. I don’t want to continue refuting you and I hope you have better things to do than to continue refuting me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    You seem really worked up about this and I understand why, because forced federalization is a very dangerous and slippery slope.

    You and I are in complete agreement. Nationalizing a company would have dramatic and catestrophic effects on the free market society in the United States. I do NOT advocate for that. The closest I would come would be good usage of the Defense Production Act.

    I don’t want to continue refuting you and I hope you have better things to do than to continue refuting me.

    I appreciate the time you've taken in having the discussion. I hope you have a great day!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •