Live data from Hacker News

California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

reuters.com

61–70 of 90 posts

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#61
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.

>> The illegal act is arbitrarily shutting down the ability to earn a livelihood. That would be illegal, but isn't what is happening. An outright ban on all work would certainly be unconstitutional (life liberty, pursuit of happiness etc). But temporarily shutting down a business because of a virus, safety issues, lack of insurance, pollution worries, failure to pay taxes, inadequate lighting in the parking lots, to…

> If you want to win in court, disobeying a law is generally not the best path. Musk isn't Rosa Parks. Musk doesn't have to be arrested before he can challenge the law in court. By acting like this he isn't helping his case(s).

Justice delayed is justice denied. When the courts themselves are grinding to a halt with the lockdown who knows when injunctive relief would arrive?

> I'm sure his lawyers are pulling their hair out.

Ha! With the rest of his shenanigans I’d be impressed if they have any left. The “pedo guy” episode must have caused a few Rogaine scrips.

> Politically, Musk is shooting himself in the foot. What if the local health department says that automotive factory workers must stay 10feet away from each other, all get respirators, get tested twice a day, and must take a month of covid safety training? Those will all be "reasonable" in the eyes of any court. That they would also kill any chance of Tesla turning a profit is political consequence of disobeying previous health orders.

If they target specifically Tesla with rules like that it’d be thrown out for being vindictive and targeted.

If they try to impose those type of rules on the entire State they’ll have a class action of businesses challenging them.

If rules are going to be imposed they need to be debated on facts, written by a legislative body, and signed into law. Not shot from the hip on a daily basis on the current executive’s whims.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#62
post #59
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your wording of "willingly spread" is also exaggerated, and I fail to see how you equate that to a person taking the generally accepted measures to prevent the spread while in public.

Event still, this isn't HIV we're talking about here, and it will presumably be seasonal going forward. Most people who even contract this will walk away perfectly fine.

There are currently 36 million jobless claims from the shutdowns. How long be before streets everywhere become inundated with freshly homeless people? How long until people riot? When does the shutdown outweigh people's livelihood and freedom?

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#63
post #12

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.

I live in Alameda County and our new cases have not been dropping for 6+ weeks. Just fluctuating up and down. Yesterday it spiked up a bit though I don't attribute it to Tesla. We haven't really run out of hospital capacity but I wonder where this will lead if the Tesla workers start getting sick. A lot of them also commute in from far off as Modesto for the work.

You can't shut down the entire economy for a disease with a death rate well under 1%. You need to protect and isolate the vulnerable until a vaccine is ready, and get back to living.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#64

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.

[deleted]

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#65

> “In my opinion, given the recent threats of the CEO to leave the state of California, and everything else we’ve discussed today, this proposal does not rise to the level for me to feel secure in supporting it,” said Gretchen Newsom, a panel member and the political director of an IBEW electrical workers union local. > Though a small amount of money, the funding was opposed by organized labor groups. Tesla and Space…

I'd be shocked if more companies don't leave California. This is just the latest in a long line of anti-business sentiment that's been cropping up in the state.

Our company has shifted production to states that are open, and we've heard they're unlikely to re-open in California at all.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#66
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Alameda County and our new cases have not been dropping for 6+ weeks. Just fluctuating up and down. Yesterday it spiked up a bit though I don't attribute it to Tesla. We haven't really run out of hospital capacity but I wonder where this will lead if the Tesla workers start getting sick. A lot of them also commute in from far off as Modesto for the work.

You can't shut down the entire economy for a disease with a death rate well under 1%. You need to protect and isolate the vulnerable until a vaccine is ready, and get back to living.

Maybe the compromise is to let they people who willing to take the risk do the jobs with high chance of exposure.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#67
post #37
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that rationale, no one should have been forced to stay home. Everyone's got mouths to feed.

Using the other rationale, driving puts others at risk and we shouldn't be in the road until driving is perfectly safe.

But driving requires a person to be above a certain age. They have to go through a test to prove they're competent. And there's still certain rules to follow like not being intoxicated while driving even after they have proved themselves to be competent.

And most importantly driving is a privilege that can be taken away if someone repeatedly fails to comply with the rules. So not really a rational rationale

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#68
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That kind of thinking got us #45. Some things are more important than entertainment.

Climate change is very important. Extinction level important. Don’t like the horse, run a better horse. This horse is doing pretty well despite the occasional tirade or Twitter meltdown. I can live with that.

The horse that just fired the IG for investigating his friend Pompeo?

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#69
post #34
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would hardly call it an arbitrary shutdown. Pandemic, ya know.

Constitutional rights, ya know.

> Constitutional rights, ya know.

There is no general Constitutional right to commercial activity.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#70
post #49

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.

Liberty (as well as life and property) can be denied by a State under the Constitution if it is not done without due process (see the 14th Amendment); pursuit of happiness isn't a Constitutional right at all.
Post reply on HN