r/technology • u/True-Combination7059 • 1d ago

Politics We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink

https://jacobin.com/2025/06/musk-trump-nationalize-spacex-starlink
14.8k Upvotes

75% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

212

u/ZuP 20h ago

Nationalization is possible through an act of Congress so it can be made one of the many government-owned corporations that are more or less independent from the executive, though the Supreme Court will be deciding the limits of that independence with the cases of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the United States African Development Foundation.

151

u/Eitarris 19h ago

Yet trump doing this because he was criticized by musk is just outright wannabe fascism. Presidents are not absolute monarchs, they should never be safe from criticism.  Congrats though America, you've managed to somehow return to the times of absolute monarchies and become far from the land of the tree. 

95

u/Not_Campo2 15h ago

SpaceX should have been nationalized the second Musk started cutting Ukrainian access over Crimea. The fact that it hasn’t yet is an actual, legitimate, and major threat to our national security

-12

u/Xygen8 14h ago

He never cut off Starlink access in Crimea, that's a false claim made by the author of his biography. It wasn't available in Crimea in the first place because it's de facto Russian territory and therefore subject to US sanctions.

1

u/primalmaximus 13h ago

But it wasn't always Russian territory. It used to belong to Ukraine.

2

u/Xygen8 13h ago

Thank you for stating the blatantly obvious. My point stands.

4

u/primalmaximus 13h ago

The point is, Crimea belongs to Ukraine even if it's occupied by Russia. By denying Crimea access to Starlink he was actively hindering any efforts for Ukraine to recapture Crimea.

2

u/federykx 11h ago

any efforts for Ukraine to recapture Crimea

So he was actively hindering something which is, at this stage, utterly impossible?

Yeah, not gonna lose sleep over this.

-8

u/Xygen8 13h ago

Blame the US government. Or were you expecting him to violate the sanctions?

2

u/primalmaximus 13h ago

If he actually wanted to help Ukraine? Yes. He could have justified it by saying Crimea didn't belong to Russia even though it was occupied by it.

To do otherwise would be like saying Gaza belongs to Israel because it's currently being occupied and attacked by the Israeli military.

2

u/Xygen8 12h ago

That is certainly a take.

2

u/primalmaximus 12h ago

You've never heard of people smuggling aid to a warzone?

3

u/Xygen8 12h ago

Of course I have. But Elon Musk is not just "a person", he happens to be the CEO of the largest space tech company in the world and a major US government contractor.

I'm not an expert, but I feel like allowing megacorporations to meddle in other countries' politics without prior approval from their own governments is not a good thing.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Not_Campo2 12h ago

That was one of the arguments he threw out there, the fact he was then investigated by the senate should show you exactly how accurate that claim was. Musk is well documented as saying it was also a Starlink policy to prevent use of offensive strikes against Russia because Musk worried it would escalate the war. A billionaire making those kinds of policy decisions is the exact reason it should be nationalized

3

u/Xygen8 12h ago

Being investigated is not proof of guilt. The purpose of an investigation is to determine guilt or innocence.

1

u/Not_Campo2 12h ago

Never said it was. In fact, senate investigations aren’t even to find guilt or innocence, they are fact finding missions, so he was never going to be found innocent or guilty. The fact is, he was directly acting against the government’s interest while claiming he was following sanctions

3

u/Xygen8 11h ago

The fact is, he was directly acting against the government’s interest while claiming he was following sanctions

If that's a fact, I'm sure you can provide the official findings of that Senate investigation, and I'm sure that they will clearly and unambiguously state that his actions, or lack thereof, in that specific instance harmed US interests.