The Justice Department Lawsuit Against Elon Musk’s SpaceX Is Outrageous
The Justice Department Lawsuit Against Elon Musk’s SpaceX Is Outrageous
The DOJ’s frivolous lawsuit is likely to go nowhere, but it's unlikely to be his last tussle with the state.
The Justice Department recently filed a lawsuit against SpaceX , the California-based spacecraft manufacturer and satellite communications company founded by Elon Musk .
In its lawsuit , the DOJ accused SpaceX of only hiring U.S. citizens and green-card holders, thereby discriminating against asylees and refugees in hiring, an alleged violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Musk denied the allegations and accused the government of weaponizing “the DOJ for political purposes.”
“SpaceX was told repeatedly that hiring anyone who was not a permanent resident of the United States would violate international arms trafficking law, which would be a criminal offense,” Musk wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.
It’s uncertain if the DOJ is actually targeting SpaceX (more on that in a minute), but George Mason University economist Alex Tabarrok quickly found a problem with the DOJ's allegations.
“Do you know who else advertises that only US citizens can apply for a job?” Tabarrok asked. “The DOJ.”
Tabarrok even brought the receipts: a screenshot of the DOJ job website that explicitly states, “U.S. Citizenship is Required.”
So, if Musk is discriminating against non-U.S. citizens in his hiring practices, so is the DOJ.
This makes the lawsuit prima facie absurd on one level. However, one could also argue that there could be good reasons to discriminate in hiring. And as is usually the case, for better or worse, the government gets to decide when it’s OK to discriminate and when it’s not OK.
And that’s where things get hazy.
Musk and others claim that companies such as SpaceX are legally required to hire U.S. citizens because of International Traffic in Arms Regulations, a federal regulatory framework designed to safeguard military-related technologies.
The DOJ disagrees. So who is right? It’s difficult to say, Tabarrok pointed out .
“The distinction, as I understand it, rests on the difference between US Persons and US Citizens,” he wrote on Marginal Revolution, “but [SpaceX is] 100% correct that the DoD frowns on non-citizens working for military related ventures.”
In other words, SpaceX appears to have been trying to comply with Department of Defense regulations by not using noncitizens in military-related work, and in doing so, it may have run afoul of the DOJ.
This brings me back to the question of whether the DOJ is acting in good faith with its lawsuit. We don’t know the answer, but the flimsy nature of this lawsuit and other evidence suggest Musk is indeed being hounded for political reasons.
After all, it’s not just the DOJ breathing down Musk’s neck. Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Lina Khan has been obsessed with Musk since his purchase of Twitter, now X, going so far as to demand the company “identify all journalists and other members of the media to whom Twitter has granted access since Musk bought the company.”
How this demand sits with the spirit of the First Amendment, I’m not sure. But Khan claims her concerns stem from user privacy, which is rich since the FBI for years had been harvesting mass amounts of user data from Twitter. (The precise amount is unknown since the FBI hit X with a gag order when the company tried to publish details in its biannual Transparency Report.)
It’s certainly possible the FTC and DOJ are deeply concerned about user privacy data and noncitizens seeking employment with SpaceX. But it’s far likelier that their actions stem from Musk’s purchase of Twitter and subsequent publication of the Twitter Files , which revealed the FBI had been secretly controlling the flow of information on the platform.
Such an accusation might be hard for many people to believe. There’s a tendency to view the government as benevolent and upstanding, an institution filled with people seeking the common good and protecting the weak and the poor.
Yet economist Murray Rothbard long ago destroyed the myth that government is a “quasi-divine, selfless, Santa Claus organization.” In reality, it’s more like a mafia, one that will ruthlessly protect its own turf, especially against “dangers to its own contentment.”
The DOJ’s frivolous lawsuit is likely to go nowhere, but if Rothbard’s view of the state is right, it’s a safe bet that this will not be Musk’s last tussle with the syndicate.
The premise that the DOJ decides when and how Law is applied is patently absurd puerile Logical fallacy. I find it hilarious existential a surditu that any Rational human being would even accept such vapid nonsense as Reasonable argument, let alone Logically Certain Propositional congruence. It's an irrationally idiotic contradiction of Logic.
Law is a function of Logic, not opinion.
Opinion is not Logic. Logic is not opinion. Opinion is inherent fallacy of Logic. Opinion is moot-point - even for those ignorant of, or cognitively confused by, Logic/Reason.
Cowardice is the only motivation for any citizen of the United States of America to accept such obvious criminal violation of the very premise of Law. No. The DOJ does NOT have any Lawful authority to do anything but submit to the Law like everyone else! Not even the DOJ is above-the-law! That is irrefutable axiomatic Logical Certainty of the premise of Law and our Constitution aka our Supreme Law of the Land.
The DOJ does not decide Law. It administers Justice. The 'People' decide Law via Congress. That's irrefutable axiomatic Logical Certainty of the very Law legitimatizing our Government, and every agent of Government - Public, or Civil Servant. Agents of Government are lawfully obliged to Constitutional Law without exception.
The United States Constitution is the very Standard of Law in the United States of America. Nobody's opinion changes anything about the U.S. Constitution. Not even the Supreme Court.
The Constitution is a mere 6 pages of Propositional Statements of Law. Two pages per branch of Government. Seriously, one must be feeble of Mind or illiterate of English to not understand the Constitution without question. It's intentionally written as axiomatic and irrefutable for the literate... All one must do is read. There is no refuting the Propositional/Predicate Logic or lack thereof for any written document. All Language operates upon immutable axioms of Propositional/Predicate Logic. Anyone contradicting this axiomatic Logic is either an arrogant fool, manipulative Psychopath, or feeble of Mind.
Propositional Statements by definition are axiomatic and require no interpretation whatsoever except for those illiterate of the Language in which they are written.
Moreover, the Truth Value of a Propositional Statement is axiomatic. It is the epitome of arrogant ignorance for any literate adult Human Being to be ignorant of Propositional Statements. They are one of the first functions of Language that we learn, when learning to read/write.
Language operates upon immutable axioms of Propositional/Predicate Logic. It always has, and always will. Logic originates in the Mind, and is fundamental to human cognition. All human knowledge is dependent upon Logic. Without the immutable axioms of Propositional/Predicate Logic upon which Language operate, we would have incomprehensible useless gibberish, not Language. Knowledge is dependent upon Language, and Language is dependent upon Logic. No Logic = no Language. No Language = no Gnosis. No Gnosis = no Law. No Law = no Justice. Logic is not Rocket Science even if Rocket Science exists as a discipline of Logic.
Logic is Truth.
Opinion is Fiction.
Fictional stories are the expression of opinion even when Propositional/Predicate Logic is used to create them. Stories are inherently binary, as Logic is inherently binary - Truth Value is True or False therefore stories are either True or they are False/Fiction. There is no middle state of Statements. An incongruent Statement is inherently false.
The opinion that the U.S. DOJ can arbitrarily decide Law is Fictional opinion ignorant of Logic, Reason, and Law. It's an inherently cowardly opinion.