California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

Re:California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tes... by arcticbull on Saturday May 16, 2020 @09:37PM (#23208717)

I think it violates the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness in the same way forbidding the possession of nuclear warheads violates the 2nd amendment: kinda, but for the greater good.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tes... by dgzl on Saturday May 16, 2020 @09:45PM (#23208757)

You'd be surprised the number of people who believe nuclear warheads are protected by the second amendment. Either way, that's a fair compromise and this is not.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tes... by TylerE on Saturday May 16, 2020 @11:19PM (#23209285)

Would you consider it a fair compromise to require anyone within 10ft of anyone else to wear a mask?

If your answer is no, please make the same argument but replace the word 'mask' with 'pants'.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tes... by arcticbull on Sunday May 17, 2020 @11:36AM (#23212683)

So it's okay in your opinion to curtail some constitutional rights when it makes sense to you, but not others? That's a pretty inconsistent position.

The argument being made for warheads is the same as that for staying inside: not doing so would pose an outsize danger to others. Whether I agree or disagree isn't the point personally, I'm arguing that the curtailments follow from the same basic premise and are likely legal. We'll see how it plays out.

[ Parent | on HN ]