It's private property, is it not? I don't see why taxpayers should be on the hook for everything, unless they get a return on their investment.

Nationalize the infrastructure if it's that important to the public.

▲

luke5441 6 hours ago | parent [-]

If you have to defend it yourself why pay taxes? Why not use the money to hire your private army instead?

▲

cgio 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I pay taxes too. I don’t have a policeman stationed outside my home.

▲

iAMkenough 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So you agree "taxpayers should be on the hook for everything"?

Every place SpaceX decides to operate, regardless of what taxpayers want, the taxpayers should foot the entire security bill for their private facilities?

Sounds like socialism.

▲

xboxnolifes 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Everything? No, but governments do have the monopoly on violence. As long as that is true, they bare the primary responsibility of security.

	▲	iAMkenough 43 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		So where’s the line drawn? How much should taxpayers be primarily responsible for if a private company doesn’t meet established security standards? The comments in this thread you’ve joined seem to imply a private company should be held to no standards, and that this specific company’s security should primarily be the responsibility of other taxpayers.