81–90 of 175 posts
This new flavor of conservatism is so strange in light of how bound to free market ideals most flavors of conservatism are. In general, I really quite dislike Conservative/Liberal labels as political stances are not two-dimensional, but rather multidimensional. Parties are loose alliances of disparate groups. And somehow there's this rising contingent of neocons, who also happen to dislike SpaceX. Does anyone underst…
Instead of debating labels or levels of political congruence among the various people who have brought up this issue, perhaps it would be more productive to discuss the possible ramifications of this legislation passing. Also worth considering is the topic of private influence over government (especially in defense, where it's largely just "the way things are done"), and whether or not business practices that benefit from such arrangements actually qualify as capitalism.
Both sides have seen ideological purges, and the "blue dog democrats" and "Rockefeller republicans" were purged over the last twenty years. The last real moderate was probably Boehner, and the combination of the Tea Party, and aborted "great compromises" by Obama did him in. The former Senate Majority leader claimed to be a pro-life (personally) Democrat from Vegas, but increasingly abandoned this as his party lurched to the left, and was replaced by a corporatist Democrat with deep deep links to investment banks (Schumer). Biden is still out there as a moderate Democrat, but was completely marginalized in party politics when his great compromise efforts with Boehner were torpedo'd by more activist portions of Obama's cabinet. (No one has ever taken credit for actually convincing Obama to ask for additional trillions in tax-raises last minute both times). I think Biden is just about the only candidate who could have won against Trump in the last election.
The so-called "Neo-cons" (their original name was "Vulcans") were not neocons because they were reformed conservatives, but rather former Wilsonians who turned more Jacksonian over time.
As for Musk, Shelby and Ryan, more then anything else, they are opportunists.
There is a very similar fracturing and disintegration on the left right now, with the AntiFa, the move on crowd and so called progressives all purging those who disagree with them. Then you have much much more radical elements in the colleges and universities.
The French Revolution comparisons are not without merit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> where's Peter Thiel in all this? The evidence seems to suggest Thiel has gotten in with the "throne and altar" crowd, the Neo-Reactionaries and self-described "Dark Enlightenment". https://thebaffler.com/latest/the-moldbug-variations-pein How that intersects with his techy leanings, I don't really know, it's very possible that he's being thrown overboard as you describe.
Bloody hell, I swear we're living in the pulpiest political-thriller novel I've ever fucking heard of.
Suppose Elon is a bad guy. What's to stop him from dragging a big space rock into orbit and holding the planet hostage in X years? Government will build in redundant checks and balances at extra expense. Corporations, not so much.
So is their argument “the bad guys are against it so it must be right?” They made a point to drop that terrifying B-bomb in the title, sending shivers up the spine of many a HN reader. I see the ULA vs Space X competition as productive in producing innovation, regulatory fairness aside. Regulatory problems are much less of a drag if resulting innovation is a net positive for both private and public sectors
I chuckled at this.
I think your analysis of their rhetoric is apt.
That said, the lede of the article is the media campaign pushing the pay-to-play narrative, not the righteousness of SpaceX (which is expected to be taken as a given).
Overall, the article was informative because I wouldn't have known that there was a counter argument to Sen. Paul's narrative.
Not that I agree with it but the conservative argument against SpaceX seems to be largely: >Despite the numerous public statements by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk decrying crony capitalism, SpaceX would not exist without government contracts and subsidies. According to The Wall Street Journal, government contracts account for about 70 percent of SpaceX’s contracts. U.S. taxpayers have provided SpaceX more than $5.5 billion i…
Thank you for not falling into the "Conservatives hate science" trap. I can't speak for other people, but my personal issue with Musk's ventures are how much money he funnels from the government.
okay so they still spend it on space stuff, but at least not directly.
Would they complain if the government sent money to a privatized firefighting business instead of having firefighting be part of the government?
Not that I agree with it but the conservative argument against SpaceX seems to be largely: >Despite the numerous public statements by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk decrying crony capitalism, SpaceX would not exist without government contracts and subsidies. According to The Wall Street Journal, government contracts account for about 70 percent of SpaceX’s contracts. U.S. taxpayers have provided SpaceX more than $5.5 billion i…
Thank you for not falling into the "Conservatives hate science" trap. I can't speak for other people, but my personal issue with Musk's ventures are how much money he funnels from the government.
Not that I agree with it but the conservative argument against SpaceX seems to be largely: >Despite the numerous public statements by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk decrying crony capitalism, SpaceX would not exist without government contracts and subsidies. According to The Wall Street Journal, government contracts account for about 70 percent of SpaceX’s contracts. U.S. taxpayers have provided SpaceX more than $5.5 billion i…
Thank you for not falling into the "Conservatives hate science" trap. I can't speak for other people, but my personal issue with Musk's ventures are how much money he funnels from the government.
For its launch capability, the US government should:
- buy on the open market at the lowest available price. Currently this turns out to be Russia.
- buy on the US market at the lowest available price. This may be SpaceX although other contenders are mentioned in the article
- build its own rocket systems from scratch inside government agencies
- just pay Boeing/Lockheed like they've always done
- just give up on space
(basically, if you think Musk funnels a lot of money from the US government, you should check out the rest of the aerospace industry...)
This new flavor of conservatism is so strange in light of how bound to free market ideals most flavors of conservatism are. In general, I really quite dislike Conservative/Liberal labels as political stances are not two-dimensional, but rather multidimensional. Parties are loose alliances of disparate groups. And somehow there's this rising contingent of neocons, who also happen to dislike SpaceX. Does anyone underst…
As you recognize the simplistic nature of labels, you should not be surprised when a group goes against type. I think the key to understanding the so-called neo-consrvatism is that it is not 'for' anything; rather, it is against a long list of things, and virulently so. They are conservative in that conservatives have generally defined themselves by opposition to whatever has been changing in the societies of their g…
Or is it all just chaotic feedback?