Categories
fraud ideological culture Internet controversy political economy

X Marks the Success

Elon Musk, grift, government contract, private enterprise, taxes, technology

Yesterday, I defended the honor, so to speak, of Elon Musk against Eric Peters’s charge — published, on his website — that the high-tech magnate is a “grifter.”

I focused only on the free speech angle. But Mr. Peters (“the libertarian car guy”) didn’t limit himself to criticizing X. He also criticized Tesla, SpaceX and DOGE.

Musk, Peters notes, “has just become a trillionaire by dint of the IPO of his Space Xcrement grift.” Folks bought into SpaceX, he says, because “they believe there is a Tesla roadster in orbit around the Earth and that we’ll soon be able to buy tickets for a trip to Mars.”

Is Peters suggesting that Musk did not send a Tesla Roadster into space? Is this some new sort of (forgive me) “conspiracy theory”? Truth is, the Roadster orbits the Sun, coming back from beyond the Martian orbit.

What does he think is really going on here? What Musk’s investors “have bought into is the grift of government contracts,” he says, “which are paid for with dollars fleeced from the tax sheep. People who buy Space Xcrement stock can share in the grift, of course. But it does not change the nature of the grift.”

While the bulk (but definitely not the whole) of SpaceX’s clients are government agencies, most importantly NASA, remember something that one might forget while reading Peters’s fun rant: Musk is indeed putting objects into orbit, with new and astounding technology of amazing efficiency, and NASA has announced that SpaceX’s biggest and best will soon take astronauts back to the Moon.

As for Tesla, these cars are on the road. They work. I wouldn’t buy one, but I wouldn’t call it a grift a million times, or even once. And Musk himself has said he’d happily produce cars without the subsidies. But he continues to use the system set up for more than just him — the usual businessman rationale.

Criticizable? Yes. Wholly a grift? No.

And as for DOGE, it’s not as if Musk did not try. He just got little support from Congress . . . or the President. Too bad. Still not a grift.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Grok and Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Thought

Julian the Apostate

Thou hast conquered, Galilean!

Alleged famous last words of Imperator Caesar Flavius Claudius Julianus Augustus, as first attributed to him a century after his death (June 26, A.D. 363, from wounds fighting the Sassanid Empire in the Battle of Samarra) by Theodoret in his Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Ch. 20. The reference, of course, is to Jesus of Nazareth; Julian, a neoplatonic philosopher, was the last pagan (non-Christian/anti-Christian) Roman emperor, nephew to Constantine the Great.
Categories
Today

To Hercules!

On June 26, 1783, William Herschel presented his calculation of the Solar Apex to the Royal Society, identifying the direction of the Sun’s motion through space for the first time in history.

Scientists today say Herschel was off by 10 degrees, but still got the constellation right: Hercules. The actual direction is towards a spot near the star Vega.

Categories
ideological culture individual achievement social media

X Marks the Grift?

Elon Musk, X, free speech, censorship, freedom

Most of the calumnies against Elon Musk come from people who are either envious or completely unaware of the basic principles of economics. Or both.

That being said, not everyone “in my camp” admires or defends the South African-American tech magnate. On Sunday, Eric Peters — “the libertarian car guy” — published, on his website, “Xcrement Is Just That (and more).”

“I have written a number of articles critical of Elon Musk’s ‘free speech’ social media grift,” Mr. Peters asserts, “which I say is just that because it isn’t free. . . .” 

Since I pay nothing for X, I was surprised. What?

Peters is “assuming you want more than a few people to know you’ve spoken.” That’s how he put it. “You must pay a recurrent fee for what is styled ‘reach.’ Even then, your ‘reach’ is subject to being limited via completely obscure parameters known only to Elon and his algorithm.”

And the complaint is . . . ?

The Twitterverse prior to Elon’s acquisition of the platform, asserted, with some perspicacity, that “freedom of speech is not freedom of reach.” The “freedom of reach” part was nothing other than “freedom of the press” — and the technological and business platforms that make up “the press” have never been “free of price.” Someone must pay for getting ideas out there far and wide.

Yet Mr. Peters seems to think that “Free ought to mean not just without cost but open. As in everyone can use it and no one is limited in any way from using it. Xcrement does not work like that.”

Well, the telephone system in days of yore was indeed open to everyone, but that did not mean “free.” And if you wanted to make a long-distance call, you had to pay the phone company.

While old-time telephony isn’t equivalent to modern-day social media, the parallel is close enough to show that this specific case against Elon is without merit.

Still, I wouldn’t call it excrement.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Thought

James Mill

Demand creates, and the loss of demand annihilates, supply. When an increased demand arises for any commodity, an increase of supply, if the supply is capable of increase, follows, as a regular effect. If the demand for any commodity altogether ceases, the commodity is no longer produced.

James Mill, Elements of Political Economy, Second Edition, Revised and Corrected (1824), p. 87.
Categories
Today

Custer’s Last

Virginia became the tenth state to ratify the U.S. Constitution, on June 25, 1788.

Other events on the 25th of June include Custer dying at the Battle of Little Bighorn (1876); Igor Stravinsky’s ballet The Firebird debuting (1910), with the composer becoming an instant celebrity; and Civil War veterans arriving at the Great Reunion of 1913 at Gettysburg.

Categories
First Amendment rights initiative, referendum, and recall

Freedom of Organizational Speech

free speech, censorship, Citizens United, press freedom, corporations

Is it okay to speak freely when you’re just one person but wrong when you’re organizationally cooperating with others?

The latter speech is the target of a Center for American Progress “Plan to Beat Citizens United” launched in 2025.

The hope is to stomp our freedom of speech when we speak as members of incorporated entities — unless the corporation is a news media company. Think tanks, trade groups, and others would be prohibited from using funds to engage in election or ballot-issue activity. They would enjoy little scope to discuss issues or legislation “that may be associated with candidates or ballot measure campaigns.”

Sounding the alarm is People United for Privacy, which reports that CAP’s proposal is being promulgated in 15 states. One state, Hawaii, has already enacted a CAP law. It is being challenged in court.

People United for Privacy has successfully challenged a CAP ballot question in Colorado; officials decided that the measure violated a single-subject requirement.

The bumped ballot title: “Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution removing the power of artificial persons to spend money or anything of value to influence the outcome of an election, and, in connection therewith, defining ‘artificial person’ as an entity, including a corporation, whose existence is conferred by Colorado law or that otherwise transacts business . . . in Colorado. . . ?”

The troublemaking phrase “artificial person” simply refers to a legally constituted organization formed by real people with a real right to freedom of speech.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Thought

Confucius

Men do not stumble over mountains, but over molehills.

K’ung-fu-tzu (Master Kong), as reported in United States Congress House Committee on Agriculture (1973) Hearings Before the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Ninety-second Congress, p. 21.

Categories
Today

A Newly Found Land

John Cabot landed in North America a Newfoundland on June 24, 1497, leading the first European exploration of the region since the Vikings.

In 1535 on this date, the Anabaptist state of Münster was conquered and disbanded.

June 24 birthdays include Henry Ward Beecher, clergyman and reformer (1813; died 1887); Ambrose Bierce, author of “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” and The Devil’s Dictionary — his dark, cynical wit earned him the epithet “Bitter Bierce” (1842; disappeared 1914); Richard Timberlake, American free-market economist (1922; died 2020).

Categories
election law Voting

Who & What in LA?

Los Angeles, City Council, voting, elections, non citizen, immigration, democracy

Last week, the Los Angeles City Council voted to place a charter amendment on the November 3 ballot to facilitate giving noncitizens a vote in city elections.

“The measure, introduced by Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, will give immigrants who live, work, pay taxes and raise families in Los Angeles a voice in decisions that directly affect their lives,” The New York Post reported.

Of course, “immigrants” who have become United States citizens already have the vote; this effort is about giving voting rights to immigrants who have not become citizens.

“I believe it’s a simple principle that should guide us: If you live in the city, contribute to the city, raise your family in the city and are impacted by the decisions made in the city, you deserve to have a voice in the city,” Soto-Martínez said.

First, citizen or not, the First Amendment gives everyone a voice. 

Just not necessarily a vote.

Second, these suggested criteria by which non-citizens will gain the vote are simply made-up talking points, not part of the law at all. You don’t have to “work” to be eligible to vote. Nor must one bear children and rear them in LA to qualify. Lastly, no, you don’t have to be a net taxpayer, either.*

“The amendment would modify the city charter so that the council can later adopt an ordinance authorizing eligible noncitizens to vote in municipal contests,” explained Daily49er.com. Who would be “eligible”? Those in the country illegally, as in San Francisco and Oakland?

Worst of all, voters could know the answers to those questions only after they decide to give the city council the power to expand the electorate — to whatever part of LA’s over 680,000 noncitizens it settles upon.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Plus, as standards go, “impacted by the decisions made in the city” is true for anyone who ever drives through Los Angeles. Will license plate readers be used to track down those motorists traveling through to send them mail-in ballots instead of photo enforced speeding tickets?

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts