U.S. billionaire Elon Musk has agreed to sell a portion of Starlink assets to the U.S. Department of Defense, removing himself from decision-making regarding geofencing Ukraine’s access to the satellite internet service

    • Chariotwheel@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe because it’s easier. There are probably quite a few steps before the US government can just take your shit. Don’t think the Americans are very huge fans of nationalisation and the government just taking from the rich.

    • 520@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Simply seizing his shit would trigger a hostile response from the world’s most powerful people, realising that the government could easily do the same to them.

        • 520@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Don’t underestimate what they can do. We’ve already seen one particularly moronic specimen try to seize power in the Capitol Riots and almost succeed. Imagine if it was led by someone competent who could put armed mercenaries in the crowd

          • wanderingmagus@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sounds like it’s time to “set condition 1SQ” on some civilians who think they can get away with that. Literally and unironically, I welcome the order to fucking launch. Or do it smaller scale and send a few flying razors through windows like with the Iranian general, except through penthouse windows and estates. Then keep going with all their relations and relatives and acquaintences. Hooyah. That’s one battle stations missile I wouldn’t mind rigging ship for.

            • 520@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You do realise there are a million different approaches in between ‘total appeasement’ and ‘total seizure’, yes?

              We do with them what they do with the rest of the population; give them just about enough that it doesn’t look like a raw deal to people outside this deal, in exchange for taking away their power to destabilise countries. Meanwhile, set up an execution plan for if they step out of line.

              Individually, they can still be a danger (see Donald Trump) but you do not want to see these people coordinate.

              • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                But I like ‘total seizure’. I don’t like these people and I want their stuff taken. Why should I compromise by giving them anything?

        • Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Most of the drafters owned no slaves. Regardless of the source of the document, generally discussion of government focus around the law. I guess if we’re ignoring the law, sure a populist totalitarian government can do whatever you want. There’s not much to discuss then.

          Personally, I’m a fan of the rule of law. I guess even if there wasn’t a specific law, I would still want to respect unalienable human rights anyway though.

          • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Personally, I’m a fan of the rule of law. I guess even if there wasn’t a specific law, I would still want to respect unalienable human rights anyway though.

            We’re probably closer in opinion than you think, but I don’t think billionaires have an “inalienable right” to the stolen efforts of workers.