This sounds like "obeying in advance", a phenomenon that Timothy Snyder wrote about in On Tyranny, 20 lessons from the 20th Century.

https://timothysnyder.org/on-tyranny

Helpfully, the relevant quote I was thinking of is directly on the books website:

> Do not obey in advance.

> Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.

(The quote on the website goes on with several pages of examples.)

> Harris will not act outside the bounds of a normal government official

California has even blocked SpaceX because they don't like the politics of Musk (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-10-11/la-me-sp...) so I would say is risky to expect any of the two (or its followers) not seeking revenge.

The California Coastal Commission is rather (in)famously powerful. This is kind of a special case.

Presumably you have to draw a line somewhere, though? There is not liking someone's political views and there is not liking someone's attempts to undermine the whole country by (possibly purposefully) selling it to Russia etc.

[flagged]

Could you please stop posting flamewar comments and using HN for political battle? Your account has been doing both. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

In a recent comment, you write that "single purpose accounts are not allowed on HN". This one is fourteen years ongoing, and I know that you have been alerted to it numerous times: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=rayiner

rayiner's account isn't single-purpose.

Will try, just not sure how my comment is at issue when this posting is specifically political content.

HN comments on political content need to follow the site guidelines, just as on any other content.

I mean he still appears to be making lots of money, and moreover being able to bend the rules without any serious consequences.

He has his own broadcast medium to play with and noone has banned it (apart from brazil, but all he had to do was pay some money)

  they go after him

Would love to hear what horrible consequences you think Elon is facing..

They retroactively invalidated several years of compensation packages...

"They" of course being the Delaware Chancellory Court in this situation... man people are clueless about how things work.

"Delaware Chancellory Court" of course being a political appointee in the home state of the powerful politician whom they had an adversarial relationship with, in this situation... but you know how these things work

It’s always telling when people resort to unclear conspiracy theories instead of disputing the actual evidence that lead the court to their decision.

It's telling when people resort to ad hominem. The government is in the process of confiscating tens of billions of dollars from him - if thats not a real consequence I don't know what is. Wether or not that ruling only happened because of his political position is a different matter, it's not like the judge mentioned it was because of his political posts on social media - like other officials have [1].

[1] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-10-11/la-me-sp...

The government isn't confiscating anything.. they merely ruled that the independent board of directors who authorized the richest pay deal in the history of pay deals wasn't truly independent as is necessary to properly represent the shareholders they legally must represent. Every dollar stays with the company.

Confiscate:

> Take or seize (someone's property) with authority.

> To use one's authority to lay claim to and separate a possession from its holder.

> to take (something) away from someone especially as punishment or to enforce the law or rules.

Tesla had $50 whatever billion worth of stock before his deal, they had it after the deal when Delaware ruled in the shareholders’ favor and they granted it to him again following the subsequent shareholder vote. It’s a real ‘flexible’ use of the word confiscate when the confiscating party never had a dollar of the confiscated funds…

I’m sure Elon is annoyed he has to follow basic corporate governance, but that’s kind of the point of governance.

So it wouldn't be confiscation or a punishment if the courts said you owed me a few years of your salary - because theoretically I could decide to give it back to you in the future?

If you want to wire me a few years of your compensation I will gladly accept.

I don’t have a fiduciary obligation to you, so this analogy falls apart pretty quickly.

Don't worry about the paperwork.