4 ms·
FCC Rejects Ajit Pai’s Boondoggle to Supply Musk With –$1B Dollars in Subsidies
- Arnt 4y agoThere's something strange about this article. It says (put briefly) that since Elon Musk thinks that Subsidy X should be removed, his company shouldn't apply for it. Other shareholders may not agree with him, but I'll ignore that detail now. Generalising, it says that if you think that some law should not exist and you benefit from the law, then you should act as though the law did not exist. The article doesn't say so, but I assume that if a law detriments or inconveniences you, then the writer thinks you should follow the law even if you disagree with it in principle. In other words: If the majority opinion is good for you compared to your own, then you should act according to your own opinion. If it's bad for you, then you should act on the majority opinion. I don't see a coherent rationale for that. It just seems like a milder form of flagellant ethics. "Do whatever has the worst effects for you personally." However, the fact that I don't see a coherent rationale doesn't disprove its existence. I'd like to hear arguments. My own opinion is that the law applies to everyone. It imposes duties on everyone, and grants rights to everyone. Someone who obeys the law even when disagreeing has a moral right to benefit from the law, too.