Civil disobedience typically involved still getting punished as a matter of protest to change public opinion. If Elon Musk is doing this as civil disobedience, he is using the resources of Tesla and the forced compliance of his workers in order to make a political statement. I don't really see that as better.
Instead, it seems that Musk is doing this just because he thinks he can get away with it, or because he is simply angry with the elected officials of his county. In such a situation, Tesla and Elon Musk should rightfully be punished for their actions.
Civil disobedience is typically, but not always, punished. We will have to see how this plays out.
There is also the question of which branch of government gets to have a say in the enforcement of a law. Consider California's approach to marijuana use vs the Federal government's. Or consider how there are numerous sanctuary cities that are in defiance of Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
It's not complicated because there is no conflicting guidance from the federal vs state governments. Once the federal government orders everyone to open up it will be unknown what the right answer is. States that want to continue with the lockdown will likely sue the federal government, or companies that want to open up would sue the state. The courts will weigh in and it will probably go "something something interstate commerce" and the federal government will win, forcing the states to open up.
After that it really depends upon how states respond and you could be stuck in a giant game of chicken. This is where it might get complicated and risky - mostly for people trying to abide by the law. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. But in this case, the government wont' really arrest you for not opening your car factory. But the state might arrest you for doing it.
In the case of Marijuana, it's really quite simple: everyone in California using marijuana can be arrested by the federal government. They just choose not to, at least usually.
ICE is a bit more complicated. They are trying to compel cooporation from local law enforcement, who is not responsible for enforcing immigration law. They aren't asking them to enforce it directly themselves though.
> To be fair, Musk's tweet especially says if anyone is to be arrested for this, it should be him
To be fair, you can't both commit a crime and pay other people to commit crimes and get them out of the legal consequences by tweeting that you are the only one who should be arrested.
Not sure about the rules in the US out that country. But it's it really a crime to go to work? Especially some national law and state law seem to allow it. Just the county's burocrats seem to prohibit it.
the crime here is county officials engaging in literal economic repression. It's not a matter of when the government orders whatever is says this week.
The fact of the matter is that if a business feels it's time to reopen, it should do so, cautiously of course.
Neither the employees or customers are forced to go. They have a right to refuse. They don't have a right to dictate what others decide to do with their business
> I don't see how he could be arrested given that none of this lockdown was implemented in criminal statute law.
Yes, all of it was. Or, more precisely, it was implemented under statutory authority of county and state public health officials whose orders are enforceable under preexisting criminal statutes and do not require additional criminal legislation for each new order.
In fact, Newsome's Executive Orders refer only to GOV § 8567, which only refers to procurement powers of state agencies. It specifically does not create any criminal statute, which in CA happens to be a very involved process including traversing multiple legislative committees.
In other words, he could trigger a process to confiscate your steel if he can establish urgent necessity for all of it, but he can't make it a crime to build a car. You're flat wrong on this.
> In fact, Newsome's Executive Orders refer only to GOV § 8567
This is both false and irrelevant; it's false because Newsom’s 39 (to date) executive orders relating to COVID-19 (they are almost daily) reference more than just that section—i.e, the first, EO N-25-20 (3/12/2020), references government code sections 8567, 8571, and 8572 [0]; but more to the point it's irrelevant because while the EOs have some importance in state COVID-19 response, they aren't the shelter-in-place order, which is a Public Health Order issued by the State Public Health Officer / Director of Public Health on March 19, 2020 [1], citing Health and Safety Code Sections 120125, 120140,
131080, 120130(c), 120135, 120145, 120175 and 120150, which pertain to the power of the Department of Public Health to issue such orders and the obligation of local officials to enforce them.
To quote it: "Pursuant to Government Code sections 26602 and 41601 and Health and Safety Code section 101029, the Health Officer requests that the Sheriff and all chiefs of police in the County ensure compliance with and enforce this Order. The violation of any provision of this Order constitutes an imminent threat and menace to public health, constitutes a public nuisance, and is punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both."
Now, go read what those specific codes actually say. None are criminal statutes or encompass criminal statutes.
26602.
"The sheriff shall prevent and suppress any affrays, breaches of the peace, riots, and insurrections that come to his or her knowledge, and investigate public offenses which have been committed. The sheriff may execute all orders of the local health officer issued for the purpose of preventing the spread of any contagious or communicable disease."
41601.
"For the suppression of riot, public tumult, disturbance of the peace, or resistance against the laws or public authorities in the lawful exercise of their functions, and for the execution of all orders of the local health officer issued for the purpose of preventing the spread of any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease, the chief of police has the powers conferred upon sheriffs by general law and in all respects is entitled to the same protection."
> Now, go read what those specific codes actually say. None are criminal statutes or encompass criminal statutes.
The criminal statutes are cited earlier in the order, at the very beginning:
“Please read this Order carefully. Violation of or failure to comply with this Order is a misdemeanor punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both. (California Health and Safety Code § 120295, et seq.; Cal. Penal Code §§ 69, 148(a)(1))”
HSC 120295 is the key one (the others deal with resisting arrest and interference with executive officers): “Any person who violates Section 120130 or any section in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 120175, but excluding Section 120195), is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment for a term of not more than 90 days, or by both. He or she is guilty of a separate offense for each day that the violation continued.”
The most key part of Chapter 3 for this purpose is HSC 120220: “When quarantine or isolation, either strict or modified, is established by a health officer, all persons shall obey his or her rules, orders, and regulations.”
This is municipal code, not criminal law. Very important distinction. Like with a traffic ticket, they can fine for not complying. They cannot arrest you, however.
Where they "get" you is if you blow off the court about resolving the fine which is contempt of court, which is a criminal offense.
It blows my mind how supposedly smart people know so little about the law. It's a lot like programming. The keywords are important and the logic used as well.
I guess we'll find out what the judges the locals voted for and the juries summoned are made of. Even then, their decisions can be overturned by a higher court or appealed so that basically means nothing. They can say "criminal municipal code violation" and a good judge should say, no, that's not how this works. I guess it is LA, though...
No, the code cited in the order is State (not municipal or county) code giving certain authority to county public health officers, neither municipal codes nor municipal officers are involved. Also, municipal codes in California can have criminal components, so the contrast drawn is false as well as not germane to the relevant facts.
> Like with a traffic ticket, they can fine for not complying. They cannot arrest you, however.
Being stopped and issued a traffic ticket is a non-custodial arrest and the “fine” people pay if they don't dispute tickets is legally forfeiture of bail. But, in any case, unlike minor traffic offenses, violating a county public health order issued to control communicable disease is a criminal offense punishable by fines, jail, or both; the Alameda County order cites the relevant state criminal law.
> It blows my mind how supposedly smart people know so little about the law.
You started off strong, but overreached. If I say to my spouse or child "You fucking stupid cunt, I've told you a thousand times to put the dishes away! You good for nothing piece of shit, you can't even get that right!" That's violence.
No it is not. Problems with drawing the line between what is acceptable and what is "violent" speech are caused precisely by the fact that this axiom is completely false. You cannot have free speech, and by extension speech at all, without causing what you percieve as "violence".
First of all, do not put equality sign between physical and being verbally abusive. The first one is something external that you have no control over, no matter how much you fight, the second you can just shrug off and continue with your life.
Problem with your example lies in the lack of context. On the more humorous side - maybe your wife is a cunt and your children are little bastards. If you percieve any kind of abusive expression, no matter of the context, as violence, then you're just done. There is no useful way that you can contribute to culture and society, because you cannot participate in discourse anymore.
On the more serious side - what about "psychological violence"? What about when your wife treats you like a slave and verbally abuses you on a daily basis? If your wife mistreats you, then just leave. Her words cannot stop you. What stops you is more likely the threat of being beaten, that she will make it impossible for you to see your kids and she will take your house. The violence is physical, economical and sociological, not verbal.
Going further - your comment disgusted me and I've felt that it violates some of the most important values I have in my life. Is this violence? Not at all, I will just shrug it off and continue to enjoy my day. I will get some downvotes and maybe be less frequent in visiting left-leaning websites. We lose the ability to talk to each other, but it's far from being violence. It's just stupidity on both sides.
Almost all situations of real interest and disagreement will be grey-area and call for a pragmatic vs. a dogmatic approach.
> First of all, do not put equality sign between physical and being verbally abusive.
I am not, in general -- let's try to confine ourselves to my specific example.
> The first one is something external that you have no control over, no matter how much you fight, the second you can just shrug off and continue with your life.
This is a dogmatic assertion that is not supported by the evidence. If I were feeling less charitable, I could counter that of course you could do something about physical violence -- you just had to train harder, have better weapons, or build a coalition. People are emotionally abused. Stating that in some cases, some people can transcend that abuse is ... not really relevant. It's interesting, and should be studied so that perhaps we can confer immunity to more people.
> Problem with your example lies in the lack of context. On the more humorous side - maybe your wife is a cunt and your children are little bastards.
As soon as you admit context you admit that abusive speech could be an act of violence, as well as true speech. As you say, yourself, context matters. This is why dogmatic approaches to this issue are doomed to fail.
> If you percieve any kind of abusive expression, no matter of the context, as violence, ...
Let's just stick to my example. To disprove "speech cannot be violence", I only have to find one example of speech that is violence. I don't have believe or prove that all (abusive) speech is violence.
> then you're just done. There is no useful way that you can contribute to culture and society, because you cannot participate in discourse anymore.
This is nonsense. It's smacks of litany rather than logic. A person can be a productive member of society in many ways, yet hold beliefs that disturb you.
> Going further - your comment disgusted me and I've felt that it violates some of the most important values I have in my life.
I can't know, but your words suggest that you are looking to be disgusted. We all like to be self-righteous at times, but I doubt we are as far apart as you believe.
I have deep knowledge of computer science, artificial intelligence, biology, and emotional abuse. All of these areas teach that nature has no respect for our ontologies.
We may try to draw a hard line between violence and speech, but we mislead ourselves. Almost all of the cases worth debating occur at the fuzzy edges of these concepts.
Failure to realize this may result in the sense of having a crystalline framework, but ultimately it misleads.
Violence is an act of communication and as such always bound to the context it happens in. If someone accidentally punches you during a sports match it may look violent, but you very likely won't feel violated, because you could assume the intent to hurt is not given. If someone delivers the same punch on purpose in front of your peers, you will feel extremely violated.
Two punches, equal in their physical qualities and physical pain, one much more violent than the other. What hurts more or does more lasting damage depends on the context. There are people who have been hit as a child and have no problem with it. There are people who have never been hit physically but verbally abused who will have to deal with this their whole life.
To think violence is only violence when it is physical certainly has not much to do with how people exert force onto each other in daily life. Of course this doesn't mean that every communicative act that challenges your world view, critisises your actions, highlights you mistakes etc. automatically constitutes a violent act, although you certainly might feel bad afterwards. This is why the dictionary definition of violence has "intent" in it. If someone tells you your whole life was a lie they might not intend to hurt you with their words, even if you are devastated. If someone tells you, your hair looks shitty, they do.
Note: whether you feel hurt or not plays no role in the definition of the word violence.
"behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."
Notice that word "physical". Liberals have tried to define the word to be associated with words or 'hate speech' in an attempt to shut down speech they don't want to hear. It doesn't mean they're correct.
If you want to clarify your thinking, you should consider these key questions:
1) Why is violence bad? What is it we're trying to prevent when we seek to prevent violence?
2) Are there instances of speech, which in specific contexts can, cause the same negative outcomes that we try to prevent when we seek to prevent violence?
3) Is it really true that physical violence is inescapable, while abusive speech only causes harm if the listener lets it?
Let go of left/right talking points, shallow pattern-matching, and groupism, and deeply consider these questions.
Well, I'm sure a nuanced argument about the boundaries between concepts can be settled by the first Google result.
I'll take your Google result and throw you this Oxford English Dictionary result, which admits a more nuanced interpretation: https://www.oed.com/oed2/00277885
That definition is the same as the one I gave. It talks specifically of "physical" violence, at least as the main definition.
When I was growing up, we always had this phrase: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." It was usually the response to a kid complaining of being verbally teased at school, in the sense that he needed to ignore it - don't bother the teacher / parents about it unless the bullies start using their fists to hurt you.
The left has tried to redefine violence over the years in order to create the idea of "hate speech" which they want punished the same as violence.
A more interesting example would be giving an order to fire rubber bullets into a peaceable crowd. In the same sense that someone has committed murder if they hire a hitman, we could say that the speech act of giving the order, is a violent act.
Your example of a stream of abusive language, is not the equivalent of that. If someone is punished for such an act, they are not being punished for committing a violent offence.
I do wish people would stop trying to shift the definition of 'violence'. I don't want to have to make a habit of saying 'physical violence' just to close the door on it.
The difference between your view and the view you are commenting on is (as so often) whether we look at the act or the outcome. And honestly, given the dictionary definition of violence both are valid perspectives.
Cambridge Dictionary says: violence – extremely forceful actions that are intended to hurt people or are likely to cause damage.
Nowhere does it say these actions have to be carried out with the body (and if we are pedantic here, yelling into a room can be very physical as well as you are literally moving air with your breath).
Violence is a matter of communication. If your girlfriend accidentally turns around and hits you in the face with full force, it hurts, but that doesn't mean it was violent behaviour. If she however hits you on purpose with bad intent, it can be weak as hell and still constitute violent behaviour.
This means violence is not purely physical, but also an act of demonstrating/communicating power over the other. And as an act of communication there is more to it than it's pure physical components.
> If your girlfriend accidentally turns around and hits you in the face with full force, it hurts, but that doesn't mean it was violent behaviour. If she however hits you on purpose with bad intent, it can be weak as hell and still constitute violent behaviour.
Disagree. That is a violent act, but one without violent intent.
Boxing is a violent sport, but isn't criminal.
> This means violence is not purely physical, but also an act of demonstrating/communicating power over the other. And as an act of communication there is more to it than it's pure physical components.
I don't think the word 'communication' is helpful here. I think what you're getting at is intent.
> Disagree. That is a violent act, but one without violent intent.
intent is in the dictionary definition of the term violence, which is my point. How do you know it is intent? It is beeing communicated (be it verbal, nonverbal or otherwise).
Defining acts like these as communication has a long tradition in system theory, which among other things is used in therapy of families and relationships, so this is not really a creative act on my side.
That people at times use actions (including violent ones) to communicate is nothing new, everybody who has a child knows this.
In conversations like this, it's unhelpful to defer to your favourite dictionary. For one, I can point to another dictionary whose definition of 'violence' makes no mention of intent. [0] (Originally I'd thought to use the Oxford dictionary for this example, but I'd missed that their definition, like Cambridge's, does mention intent specifically :-P )
More than that though, I'm able to have my own take on the meaning of a word.
Philosophers have no use for dictionaries when exploring the meaning of 'free will', for instance. For someone already fluent in English, the dictionary contributes nothing.
> How do you know it is intent?
Ah, I wasn't clear. I don't think violence is a matter of intent, but I think 'intent' may be a better word for what you were referring to as 'communication', unless I misunderstood your point.
I can see that it makes some sense to view violence as 'communication', in the same way evolution is steered by 'communication' between species, but I don't see that this perspective is bringing much to the table in this context.
> Instead, it seems that Musk is doing this just because he thinks he can get away with it, or because he is simply angry with the elected officials of his county. In such a situation, Tesla and Elon Musk should rightfully be punished for their actions.
Here is the thing about the Tesla culture, which is like a more subdued one then the one at SpaceX: some people are 'all in' about the cause and are putting their Lives at risk working 10+ hours everyday.
One of the reasons I decided to go work for Kimbal instead of Tesla was the mandatory Swing shift for Supply Chain (at the time) ahead of the Model 3 ramp. People were putting in 60+ hours in 4 day schedules. Burn out is not possible, its near exepected. They also offer really amazing Health Packages, like the best any other Multi-national corp ever offered me because they understood it as critical component to success in such an ambitious goal. At Kimbal's place I could do 60+ hours over 6 days, which if you've done either is taxing, but the former wipes you out and messes up your circadian rhythm, which as you get older is harder to re-adjust on the fly.
If you honestly think there aren't people waiting to just go back to work at the HQ factory to do what they joined up for int first place then you haven't met many Tesla people, let alone any SpaceX guys.
Is this fair? I think if Elon/HR has stipulated there are no consequences for those who can't or won't return, then, yes. The Factory has only just been able to recently turn things around after an amazing Manufacturing feat from the Fremont Team, only to have this stifled by the Local government, who oddly benefit a great deal from the revenue generated from Fremont.
If any of you have been to Fremont, you'll know there isn't much Economic activity there, even for the East Bay. Lots of local businesses, little restaurants and some fast food places rely heavily on Tesla employees. This is a lose-lose situation which may be due to political reasons, but if a fine is all the stands in the way of making the deliveries back-log get smaller, then its worth it. (Elon is saying he is willing to get arrested for it?)
People have paid in full for a Model Y, which has been refined due to Model 3's hard-earned lessons, the losses and missed opportunity costs are immense. If they have to move production of Y to Shanghai and re-import them to the US then not only is that a supply chain nightmare, but it completely undoes the cost-savings that made Shanghai imperative in the first place.
I don't blame him, this has also boosted the stock price above 800 again, too. So the Market agrees with his decision.
> Jesus, the frickin Nazi Youth did the same thing!
Personally speaking, I met a person that was Hitler Youth when I lived in Southern Germany; and for a majority it was less about a dark haired, dark eyed Austrian talking about the 'aryan master race' then you'd think, and more about not wanting to die of hunger as all the farms were Nationalized.
> Why don't people ever see the leader worship and authoritarianism (fascism) in corporations?
I've said before and I'll say it again: I'm not in the cult of Elon, I care what he enables not what he is/isn't. You cannot deny that EV has succeed in large part because of Tesla, I worked for all the major Car manufactures with a real EV program (BMW/VW/Nissan) and those are now completely shifting in large because Tesla succeeding in it's Mission statement.
SpaceX delivered on its promise of making Rockets re-usable and more affordable etc...
Those are his companies, which he founded and risked eveything to get to where they are, but its the People who work in them that I support and champion. I just find Elon funny in a meme troll-like way, especially towards those who seem to take offense to every action/indiscretion he makes.
I did not mean to imply you were in the cult of Elon.
As a teacher of American History I have read countless diaries of these kids, they were brainwashed while they were in the scouts. I do not blame them either.
>Those are his companies, which he founded and risked eveything to get to where they are, but its the People who work in them that I support and champion. I just find Elon funny in a meme troll-like way, especially towards those who seem to take offense to every action/indiscretion he makes.
You could have championed the people in Hitler's armies as well.
> I did not mean to imply you were in the cult of Elon.
That's the issue with hyperbole, it tends to lends itself to extremes.
> You could have championed the people in Hitler's armies as well.
Back to the Nazi narrative, no I personally wouldn't have, want know why? During the (illegal) Iraq and Afghan Invasion I was in staunch opposition, and I went to a Pro-war University and come from a Military family. Both of my cousins were vets of both Iraq and Afghanistan, one with 3 tours in total. I was supposed to be the third, but realized in the 6th grade killing for the State is still Murder and that War is not a career--I wanted to help preserve Life, not destroy it.
I'm glad I got accustomed to having to do with less, as my family practically shunned me for this position and were aghast at my Anarchist leanings and didn't support me in anyway because of my refusal to accept the BS narrative that was sold to them.
So, having lived amongst and worked with said former Hitler Youth, something I'm sure even you as Historian probably cannot say, it was ultimately an experience that led to compassionate acceptance.
He didn't want to fight in Hitler's BS war of Genocide. He was hungry and did what he was told as a child from a rural farming family who had their land stolen from them and was subject to go days/weeks without eating.
He was the 'Opa' of the family I worked for on the farm, I would bring him coffee in the morning while he sorted through the potatoes we planted, harvested out of respect, and despite what you may want to think I never saw a blood-thirsty genocidal maniac.
Instead I saw a broken man who was forcefully inducted to march and sing to feed his Family, who later became a farmer himself after the war and inevitably lost his farm due to Chernobyl's fallout, and a Man who still suffered the affects of unfathomable levels of scarcity as he would regularly take whatever looked edible from our compost bin, despite having access to the store and the farms fresh produce.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but if you're an Educator you really should have better arguments to base your views/convictions on. Nazism was a horrible system, but there are more cogent ways to convey your position than resorting to 'well, Nazis...'
>simply angry with the elected officials of his county
Erica Pan received zero votes for her because she has never appeared on the ballot. She's an appointed not an elected official. This is her choice and the public has no possibility of direct electoral response to her decision to forbid Tesla opening.
When it comes to a choice between Musk's judgement versus elected officials, I'd suggest the former has a superior track record to the latter. Not to mention, any punishment will blow straight back at them when Musk then moves the Tesla factory. It's quite amusing really.
Even if Musk is right and the county officials are wrong, he still has to follow the law. If he thinks he can get away with breaking the law because he can threaten to move his business, I would support jail time for him. The attitude that having money puts one above the law is not something that should be tolerated.
Just to be clear, the public official who tweeted that has nothing to do with Alameda County. She's an assemblywoman from San Diego. And I'll note that her angry tweet doesn't endanger anyone's life.
So far, Alameda County officials have been very subdued in their response - too subdued, in my opinion. They're afraid of Musk moving his factory out of town. It's a terrible message to send that large businesses can ignore public health regulations, and avoid consequences by threatening to leave.
Do you support throwing non-violent drug offenders in prison too? Or are you in only in favor of jailing rich people who might actually have enough leverage to prove in court that the law is unjust (or better yet, completely unconstitutional)?
I support jailing executives who willfully violate the law, especially if they think that they can get away with it by threatening to move their business elsewhere. We can't live in a society in which money buys you the right to violate the law.
You can believe that the county's rules are unwise, but they're in place in order to protect public health. Right or wrong, Musk is violating those rules and thinks he'll get away with it because he runs an important company. There has to be a clear message that he won't get away with it. Fining him won't make a difference. Prison time might.
I have no idea what (if any) compensation Tesla workers receive while not working during the pandemic, nor do I know if those workers will be penalized for not working - particularly for not working while the factory is open in violation of state restrictions.
The county order prohibits both businesses operating and individuals engaging in out-of-home activity except as explicitly permitted by the order, and violating a county public health order is a crime (misdemeanor) punishable by up jail.
Automobile manufacturing is not one of the listed exceptions, so it is illegal both to operate (for the owner) and to go to work at (for the employees) such a business.
Instead, it seems that Musk is doing this just because he thinks he can get away with it, or because he is simply angry with the elected officials of his county. In such a situation, Tesla and Elon Musk should rightfully be punished for their actions.