Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 90 posts

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#51

Post by dgzl »

all2well wrote: post #26
burrows wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, you’re crazy. Me: Who produces the food if no one works? You: Food producers are essential workers so food production is unaffected. Me: How do people outside the food industry pay for the food without working? You: They don’t. The government taxes future productive efforts of other people to buy the food. Me: But I don’t want the government to take my future dollars and give them away. You: Too bad chump.

A better answer, from your perspective, would probably be that private charity and food banks deal with this problem already, right?

Let's say you need to distribute $50,000. Using a reputable charity, that $50,000 will be effectively distributed. Using government, you will need an additional $50,000 just to hire the person to oversee the project of distribution.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#52

Post by threatofrain »

new_realist wrote: post #2

Contrary to what Tesla told Alameda County, the Tesla factory is (illegally) in full production, producing cars sitting on Pier 80 for export to Europe and China. https://tslaq.org/letter-from-the-saf-to-alameda-county-offi... That’s not an essential activity; it’s just greedily risking California lives to serve luxury car consumers abroad. I’m not surprised that California is none too happy with Elon.

California and Fremont have both stated that the Fremont facility is “critical”. It’s Alameda County that’s walking to its own tune, but as Elon basically said goodbye to California, there’s no use for the state to cry over spilled milk.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#53

Post by all2well »

dgzl wrote: post #38
all2well wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A better answer, from your perspective, would probably be that private charity and food banks deal with this problem already, right?

They are certainly more effective than Government handouts.

My point is nobody wants people to starve, neither Elon and his buddies or Gretchen Newsom

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#54

Post by TylerE »

dgzl wrote: post #49
throwaway45783 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a constitutional right, or just a matter of general individual liberty? Because if it's a matter of individual liberty, I think we can sacrifice some of those for the time being for the greater good of society.

I would say locking down the country violates our rights to liberty and also the pursuit of happiness.

Being dead violates our right to life.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#55

Post by arcticbull »

dgzl wrote: post #49
throwaway45783 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a constitutional right, or just a matter of general individual liberty? Because if it's a matter of individual liberty, I think we can sacrifice some of those for the time being for the greater good of society.

I would say locking down the country violates our rights to liberty and also the pursuit of happiness.

I think it violates the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness in the same way forbidding the possession of nuclear warheads violates the 2nd amendment: kinda, but for the greater good.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#56

Post by dgzl »

TylerE wrote: post #54
dgzl wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say locking down the country violates our rights to liberty and also the pursuit of happiness.

Being dead violates our right to life.

What a ridiculous statement. You cannot enforce the Constitution on edit: acts of nature.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#57

Post by dgzl »

arcticbull wrote: post #55
dgzl wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say locking down the country violates our rights to liberty and also the pursuit of happiness.

I think it violates the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness in the same way forbidding the possession of nuclear warheads violates the 2nd amendment: kinda, but for the greater good.

You'd be surprised the number of people who believe nuclear warheads are protected by the second amendment. Either way, that's a fair compromise and this is not.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#58

Post by galvin »

Nightshaxx wrote: post #14
koolba wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The illegal act is arbitrarily shutting down the ability to earn a livelihood. When these cases make their way through the courts I’m thinking they’re going to side with the Musks, not the Newsoms.

Why shut down jobs if they can be safely done with social distancing? Preventing someone from being to exercise their freedoms and feed their family when they aren't harming others is just illogical panic.

Nobody is arguing against feeding families.

Business taking insufficient safety measures pose a risk to their employees and the wider community. Due to the broad and delayed nature of the risk and the effort required to deal with it, it's not clear that business will voluntarily take the best course of action.

For the sake of protecting employees from unsafe conditions and protecting the wider community from secondary effects in a timely manner it's better to implement broad measures first and deal with the details later.

The cost of temporary unemployment is nothing compared to the cost of surpassing the capacity of healthcare services.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#59

Post by galvin »

dgzl wrote: post #56
TylerE wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being dead violates our right to life.

What a ridiculous statement. You cannot enforce the Constitution on edit: acts of nature.

Exaggerated maybe but not ridiculous.

A persons right to pursue happiness does not trump other people's rights to do the same.

Willing spreading an infectious virus is not an act of nature.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#60

Post by smsm42 »

Both sides look bad for me here. Musk for asking $655k of state money when he could obviously afford to foot such a bill on his own - just in April 2019 they raised half a billion, surely they could afford to spend 0.1% of that on "training funds" without milking the taxpayer. I understand that if the funds are available a savvy businessman would take them even if they don't need them - but that doesn't exactly elicit sympathy.

And California, of course, by conditioning distribution of tax funds which should be equally available to every qualifying business on kowtowing to politicians and denying the funds if somebody dares to challenge their policies. That's not how these funds are supposed to work, if they serve any purpose it's not to give Newsom or his minions a leverage to shut up their opponents.

Post reply on HN