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.
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.
After the conflict of interest is resolved, what next? The capabilities are still lost. He has still gained wealth from malfeasance. What's the next step? Pay him more money to fill the gaps created by corruption?
No, the answer is to ensure any profit from corruption is reclaimed. The idea of "just let the corrupt keep what they stole" has led us right here to this moment.
EDIT:
I do want to be clear on what my concern is here, too - I don't have a problem with commercial space flight. I wouldn't have a problem with NASA using commercial vendors for a major of their missions. I would have mild concern but not a great deal if NASA dropped most of their launch capabilities, retaining only ones needed for specialized missions and unique orbits. But I wouldn't oppose it like this.
But I have a major issue with that process being run by the one person most likely to directly profit from it. That completely destroys all faith that the process is being done in a responsible way that will put the well-being our nation above the wealth of a single individual.
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.
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-...