3 ms·

What is your evidence that he was involved in the decision?

by natch 2y ago

bigyabai 2y ago
Musk is a fed now, the burden of proving innocence rests solely on his shoulders. You might argue that's unfair, but this is the table stakes for meddling in public office while also playing as executive chairman.
- natch 2y ago
  “Meddling” hmm. Perhaps he’ll choose to be “guilty” if the alternative means more air traffic accidents, leaving astronauts stranded in space, and watching the bankruptcy of the country leave everything in shambles.
  - bigyabai 2y ago
    Perhaps he'll ship FSD tomorrow, or finally indict "pedo guy" with some form of evidence. It's somewhat besides the point.
  - DannyBee 2y ago
    People keep citing his accomplishments (for lack of a better term) as if it has any bearing on whether something else a conflict and whether he needs to recuse or not. As if to imply that because they believe he helps in the end, it makes it not a conflict for him to be involved. To be clear: It is irrelevant. It would be a very strange definition of "conflict of interest" if the answer depended on what happened after you already participated. The whole point of conflicts is to not participate in processes where you may be seen as unfairly advancing your own self interest, or your bias may make you not objective in a situation that requires objectivity (IE judges at trials). Note the "may be seen", etc. Conflicts policies rarely, if ever, require actual self-interest or actual non-objectivity, only the appearance of it. Often, government and legal policies go even further, and for example, judges are required to recuse if "their impartiality might reasonably be questioned". That's it. That's the bar. It's a very low one. Government contracting is similar. So in Elon's case, it does not matter whether he would be helpful, harmful, or whatever. This is not a particularly tough ethical quandry, or out of the ordinary. As for whether he'll "choose to be guilty", he was the one who said he would step aside and not participate in anything with a conflict. He's also required by law to do it, but he specifically said he would. He also chose to subject himself to these policies - he knew what being a government employee would require of him. To then ignore them is at best, wildly unethical. We have a process by which these policies could be changed, and the party in office has enough power (legislative, executive) to change them. If they think they aren't getting the outcomes needed, then change the policies, then operate according to the new ones. Heck - there is even a process for exempting people from various conflict requirements that they could use if Elon needs to be exempted. They have not done this either (it requires public publication of the reasoning, etc, so it would not be missed if it had happened). There are a lot of ways to get things done without running afoul of ethics rules. Which means "ends justify means" type arguments are mostly nonsense.
    - natch 2y ago
      >He's also required by law to do it, but he specifically said he would. Do you know him as a man of his word? I don't. I think he'll do whatever makes sense for his goals in the circumstances. And those goals are often aligned with long term good for humanity, but with a strong dose of irreverence toward the hypocritical supposed ethics rules of his detractors. >there is even a process for exempting people from various conflict requirements Sure, have you requested a copy of the waiver? Most likely a SGE waiver under (208(b)(3)). No? Didn't think so. I doubt most journalists have either, since they hate him. >it requires public publication of the reasoning Public publication is not required. They are required to disclose upon request. You may be thinking of Individual Waivers, (208(b)(1)) where publication is required, unlike special government employees serving on advisory committees.
DannyBee 2y ago
I think you may be confused. Here's what should happen - by law, by statute, and what any more general conflicts of interest policy would tell you in roughly any situation: "Oh, this is a thing that appears <doesn't have to be actual> it might have material effect on a business I own <for example, there are other reasons he would be required to recuse here>, and I am in a position of apparent <it doesn't have to be actual> power over some portion of it. Therefore, i'm not supposed to be involved at all. I have to go out of my way to be disinvolved. I don't opine on it, I don't try to learn anything about it, I don't try to influence it. If my subordinates are involved, I deliberately refuse to talk to them about it as well". That's generally the rule. The rules are actually worse for him here, but i'm made it less worse for the sake of my response. No matter what though, you can see he doesn't have to be involved in the decision for it to be a conflict, and it's not enough to not be involved in the decision making. He also can't opine on it or try to influence it through opinion, or talk to others about it. That's what it means to recuse from something - you are not involved at all, and involvement is not just "active" involvement, but "passive" involvement (opinion offering, influence) as well. So regardless of whether he is involved in the decision making itself (i would not be surprised if he was, but let's put it aside) ... here is clearly doing the other things - hopefully you've read his tweets and other opinions on this, but if not, happy to link where he is clearly giving opinions and views and trying to influence the result, post being employed by the government.
- natch 2y ago
  So, move the goal posts. If you are doing it, and you are, turnabout is fair play. And with lives at stake (I can give examples) you’ll understand that he might get some shit done and yeah that is not perfectly comfortable for everybody, but maybe, just maybe, he is in there with a better view of the situation than you and I have.

What is your evidence that he was involved in the decision?

by natch 2y ago

What is your evidence that he was involved in the decision?

Musk is a fed now, the burden of proving innocence rests solely on his shoulders. You might argue that's unfair, but this is the table stakes for meddling in public office while also playing as executive chairman.

natch 2y ago
“Meddling” hmm. Perhaps he’ll choose to be “guilty” if the alternative means more air traffic accidents, leaving astronauts stranded in space, and watching the bankruptcy of the country leave everything in shambles.
- bigyabai 2y ago
  Perhaps he'll ship FSD tomorrow, or finally indict "pedo guy" with some form of evidence. It's somewhat besides the point.
- DannyBee 2y ago
  People keep citing his accomplishments (for lack of a better term) as if it has any bearing on whether something else a conflict and whether he needs to recuse or not. As if to imply that because they believe he helps in the end, it makes it not a conflict for him to be involved. To be clear: It is irrelevant. It would be a very strange definition of "conflict of interest" if the answer depended on what happened after you already participated. The whole point of conflicts is to not participate in processes where you may be seen as unfairly advancing your own self interest, or your bias may make you not objective in a situation that requires objectivity (IE judges at trials). Note the "may be seen", etc. Conflicts policies rarely, if ever, require actual self-interest or actual non-objectivity, only the appearance of it. Often, government and legal policies go even further, and for example, judges are required to recuse if "their impartiality might reasonably be questioned". That's it. That's the bar. It's a very low one. Government contracting is similar. So in Elon's case, it does not matter whether he would be helpful, harmful, or whatever. This is not a particularly tough ethical quandry, or out of the ordinary. As for whether he'll "choose to be guilty", he was the one who said he would step aside and not participate in anything with a conflict. He's also required by law to do it, but he specifically said he would. He also chose to subject himself to these policies - he knew what being a government employee would require of him. To then ignore them is at best, wildly unethical. We have a process by which these policies could be changed, and the party in office has enough power (legislative, executive) to change them. If they think they aren't getting the outcomes needed, then change the policies, then operate according to the new ones. Heck - there is even a process for exempting people from various conflict requirements that they could use if Elon needs to be exempted. They have not done this either (it requires public publication of the reasoning, etc, so it would not be missed if it had happened). There are a lot of ways to get things done without running afoul of ethics rules. Which means "ends justify means" type arguments are mostly nonsense.
  - natch 2y ago
    >He's also required by law to do it, but he specifically said he would. Do you know him as a man of his word? I don't. I think he'll do whatever makes sense for his goals in the circumstances. And those goals are often aligned with long term good for humanity, but with a strong dose of irreverence toward the hypocritical supposed ethics rules of his detractors. >there is even a process for exempting people from various conflict requirements Sure, have you requested a copy of the waiver? Most likely a SGE waiver under (208(b)(3)). No? Didn't think so. I doubt most journalists have either, since they hate him. >it requires public publication of the reasoning Public publication is not required. They are required to disclose upon request. You may be thinking of Individual Waivers, (208(b)(1)) where publication is required, unlike special government employees serving on advisory committees.

DannyBee 2y ago

I think you may be confused. Here's what should happen - by law, by statute, and what any more general conflicts of interest policy would tell you in roughly any situation: "Oh, this is a thing that appears <doesn't have to be actual> it might have material effect on a business I own <for example, there are other reasons he would be required to recuse here>, and I am in a position of apparent <it doesn't have to be actual> power over some portion of it. Therefore, i'm not supposed to be involved at all. I have to go out of my way to be disinvolved. I don't opine on it, I don't try to learn anything about it, I don't try to influence it. If my subordinates are involved, I deliberately refuse to talk to them about it as well". That's generally the rule. The rules are actually worse for him here, but i'm made it less worse for the sake of my response. No matter what though, you can see he doesn't have to be involved in the decision for it to be a conflict, and it's not enough to not be involved in the decision making. He also can't opine on it or try to influence it through opinion, or talk to others about it. That's what it means to recuse from something - you are not involved at all, and involvement is not just "active" involvement, but "passive" involvement (opinion offering, influence) as well. So regardless of whether he is involved in the decision making itself (i would not be surprised if he was, but let's put it aside) ... here is clearly doing the other things - hopefully you've read his tweets and other opinions on this, but if not, happy to link where he is clearly giving opinions and views and trying to influence the result, post being employed by the government.

natch 2y ago
So, move the goal posts. If you are doing it, and you are, turnabout is fair play. And with lives at stake (I can give examples) you’ll understand that he might get some shit done and yeah that is not perfectly comfortable for everybody, but maybe, just maybe, he is in there with a better view of the situation than you and I have.