4 ms·

Sure, but its just not "billionaires" that need to be checked. Sometimes the checkers need some checking as well... "California officials cite Elon Musk’s pol

Sure, but its just not "billionaires" that need to be checked. Sometimes the checkers need some checking as well... "California officials cite Elon Musk’s politics in rejecting SpaceX launches" (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/10/california-reject-musk-spacex-0018337 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/10/california-reject-m...) Whether you like Elon Musk or his politics... or not I hope you can see that these actions demonstrate the danger of an overly powerful regulatory body. California Costal Commission members acting in their regulatory capacity while citing Musk's politics is out of line, abusive of their power, and not consistent with guarantees of freedom of expression or the democratic process. You don't win against MAGA or Trump by becoming them... and if you try to beat Trump at his own game... you aren't any damn better.

philipwhiuk 2y ago
1. It's not clear the California Costal Commission actually have veto over federal land. Federal land ultimately is not within the power of the state to regulate. So they might be powerless. 2. The federal land is aimed at launches for national defense. It's not clear how commercial Starlink missions to mostly server commercial interests fits into this mandate 3. They actually okay'd 36 just not the full 50 - still an increase. 4. There's a fit a proper test to run a company - at some point Musk is gonna get called on this at the current rate.
- sbuttgereit 2y ago
  > It's not clear the California Costal Commission actually have veto over federal land. Federal land ultimately is not within the power of the state to regulate. So they might be powerless. > The federal land is aimed at launches for national defense. It's not clear how commercial Starlink missions to mostly server commercial interests fits into this mandate "'I do believe that the Space Force has failed to establish that SpaceX is a part of the federal government, part of our defense,' said Commissioner Dayna Bochco." OK, sure let's accept that assertion... but that's besides the point: should the commissioners be deciding these matters on the basis of their legally appointed areas of regulatory oversight or on their broader political sensitivities? If we're really saying its OK for regulatory bodies with a specific area of protection/oversight to express the agendas of constituencies outside of that concern, or allow commissioners to simply make enforcement actions based broadly on their own personal preferences rather than interpretation of laws and establish regulations, such as labor relations, "bad antics", and presidential elections... what have we really become and what is the point of the regulatory body? In the end, I think the commissioner quoted above is simply making a shallow rationalization. Moreover, why would a federal agency seek a state commission approval if it's not actually required? Doing so would just be asking for a political firestorm: there are incentives for the state to show they aren't beholden to the feds and the feds would simply be inviting controversy in cases where the state told them "no" and they went ahead anyway. You can see this in the article where the commission says Space Force disrespected them. Why opt into that kind of low-win scenario if you don't have to? > There's a fit a proper test to run a company - at some point Musk is gonna get called on this at the current rate. How is this in the purview of a commission that is ostensibly created to protect the coastal environment and things like public access to beaches? This is why I am deeply suspicious of government: I'm given reason to be based on their actions and motivations. Who knows, maybe someday we'll normalize this deviance of regulatory purpose and our laws so much that maybe I'll be denied my next driver's license renewal for having said these things.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
kiba 2y ago
Based on this comment alone, Elon Musk's politics should have nothing to do with their rejection of SpaceX launches.

philipwhiuk 2y ago

1. It's not clear the California Costal Commission actually have veto over federal land. Federal land ultimately is not within the power of the state to regulate. So they might be powerless. 2. The federal land is aimed at launches for national defense. It's not clear how commercial Starlink missions to mostly server commercial interests fits into this mandate 3. They actually okay'd 36 just not the full 50 - still an increase. 4. There's a fit a proper test to run a company - at some point Musk is gonna get called on this at the current rate.

sbuttgereit 2y ago
> It's not clear the California Costal Commission actually have veto over federal land. Federal land ultimately is not within the power of the state to regulate. So they might be powerless. > The federal land is aimed at launches for national defense. It's not clear how commercial Starlink missions to mostly server commercial interests fits into this mandate "'I do believe that the Space Force has failed to establish that SpaceX is a part of the federal government, part of our defense,' said Commissioner Dayna Bochco." OK, sure let's accept that assertion... but that's besides the point: should the commissioners be deciding these matters on the basis of their legally appointed areas of regulatory oversight or on their broader political sensitivities? If we're really saying its OK for regulatory bodies with a specific area of protection/oversight to express the agendas of constituencies outside of that concern, or allow commissioners to simply make enforcement actions based broadly on their own personal preferences rather than interpretation of laws and establish regulations, such as labor relations, "bad antics", and presidential elections... what have we really become and what is the point of the regulatory body? In the end, I think the commissioner quoted above is simply making a shallow rationalization. Moreover, why would a federal agency seek a state commission approval if it's not actually required? Doing so would just be asking for a political firestorm: there are incentives for the state to show they aren't beholden to the feds and the feds would simply be inviting controversy in cases where the state told them "no" and they went ahead anyway. You can see this in the article where the commission says Space Force disrespected them. Why opt into that kind of low-win scenario if you don't have to? > There's a fit a proper test to run a company - at some point Musk is gonna get called on this at the current rate. How is this in the purview of a commission that is ostensibly created to protect the coastal environment and things like public access to beaches? This is why I am deeply suspicious of government: I'm given reason to be based on their actions and motivations. Who knows, maybe someday we'll normalize this deviance of regulatory purpose and our laws so much that maybe I'll be denied my next driver's license renewal for having said these things.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

kiba 2y ago

Based on this comment alone, Elon Musk's politics should have nothing to do with their rejection of SpaceX launches.