There have been a series of violent incidents and acts of vandalism aimed at Tesla facilities, dealerships, vehicles and charging stations. The most likely motivation is anger at Elon Musk. Musk has aligned himself with the far-right and his DOGE has proven both unpopular and harmful. For example, DOGE’s attack on USAID will result in illness and death. This raises the ethical issue of whether this “war” on Musk is morally justified.
The obvious moral case against these attacks is that while they are aimed at Musk, they will also hurt other people. While people do buy Tesla vehicles because they agree with Musk, there are many Tesla owners who disagree with him. Anecdotally, most of the Tesla owners I know are wealthy liberals who bought them back when Tesla was presenting itself as a green company. And even if a Tesla owner backs Musk, this would not warrant damaging their vehicle to harm Musk, especially since it will hurt the owner rather than Musk. Going after charging stations will also mainly hurt innocent Tesla owners and attacking dealerships and facilities will harm their owners and the people who are employed there. As these attacks will do considerable collateral damage to innocent people, this sort of war on Musk is morally problematic. An obvious reply to this is to run with the analogy to war.
Even a just war will involve collateral damage to innocents and noncombatants and the same arguments used in favor of just war could be applied to this situation. While it is regrettable that innocent people and people other than Musk and his supporters will be harmed, this is the only viable means to impose consequences on Musk for his actions and the harm he and DOGE have been doing to America and the world. Those who believe in the rule of law will make the obvious and sensible reply that the use of extralegal violence is wrong. Instead, they would argue, legal remedies should be sought to preserve the rule of law and minimize violence and harm to property.
While this reply has merit, it suffers from a serious flaw. Trump has given Musk broad powers and Musk has used this to damage and dismantle the agencies and institutions that would keep him and Musk in check. While lawsuits have been brought against Musk, Trump controls the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court. He can also pardon Musk for any federal offenses. Trump also controls congress, albeit by a thin margin. As such, Musk can operate with impunity and is unlikely to face any meaningful consequences for any illegal acts and harm that he does. While Trump controls much of the state, the parts he does not control are being targeted for destruction. Within the parts that Trump controls, the machinery of the state will serve as Musk’s shield and sword: it will protect him and allow him to harm his foes. While lawyers are heroically bringing lawsuits, Musk’s power is effectively unchecked, and he is likely to have nothing to fear from legal means to oppose him.
As the state is dismantled and gutted, Musk will be able to operate in a lawless zone. In Lockean and Hobbesian terms, he is operating in the state of nature: he can do what he wants and the only means to oppose him is the use of force. People already seem to understand this; they know that Musk will be able to keep inflicting terrible damage and the best that can be done within the system is to bring lawsuits and hope that someday there will be a favorable ruling that Musk will be willing to obey. Ironically, as Musk dismantles the machinery of the state that protects the rest of us from people like him, he also dismantles his protection. When people realize that they have no legal means to address the harm being done by Musk, some people will turn to violence, just as happened with the execution of the health insurance CEO. This is the state of nature situation in which disputes must, as Hobbes said, be settled with the sword.
It is unlikely that anyone will be able to execute Musk, as he has his own private security force. Some of Musk’s private security were deputized by the US Marshall’s Service and this gives him ownership of his own small police force. He will also be protected by the “normal” police.
There is no independent prison system where Musk could be locked up for his alleged crimes or an independent judiciary that could impose fines on him. As such, the only recourse seems to be inflicting financial harm by targeting Musk’s companies. This does provide Musk with a set of hostages since hurting Musk’s companies also hurts the employees, contractors, stockholders and customers. As such, there is the moral question of whether the harm caused to these people to harm Musk would be morally acceptable. As noted above, this can be taken as falling under the ethics of just war and it can be argued that collateral damage to innocents can be justified as part of a moral conflict against an enemy who cannot be held accountable by other means. Naturally, it could be objected that the conflict with Musk is not just or argued that people must stick with legal remedies even as Musk and Trump gut the system that would allow such remedies.
There is a certain irony here, seems to me. Mr. Musk did not need to do anything he has done. I guess being filthly wealthy was not enough. I can’t believe Musk is impressionable, or patriotic. None of that would not fit who he is; how he got there. Seems to me. However, good or bad, he has struck a somnolent nerve…those who have been silent, mostly, are sick of coercion and collusion. Trump’s litany, on other matters, was: there is/was no collusion. hmmph. Sure, let’s go mine green cheese, and water, on the moon. Right. I don’t care for either Musk or Trump. Trump was associated with a deceased sex-trafficker and a corrupt member of the royal family, who has been corrupt since his youth and alleged dalliances with a British porn *star*. I lived somewhere else then. I have memory. Does anyone else?
From an ethical and moral view, there is a distinct dilemma. People who work in the Musk organization are at risk, while Mr. Musk is a freely moving target; can go anywhere; be anywhere at the drop of a hat. His employees are not so mobile. It can be argued they are part of the problem by not being part of a solution. I think that argument is fallacy, at best. Radical folks or others aggrieved could make war on the US government. That would not get them far.Because the US government could squash them. Easily. I met a person who drives one of the cars pictured on this post. I think the car is an oddity. It does not matter what I think. Perhaps Elon Musk may concluded he is too visible—might even get out of the government business? I don’t think so. Such people do not take no for an answer; do not easily accept defeat. No, he will strengthen his security, both personal and business. This is just a temporary bump in his highway.
Unfortunately, it’s a case of one being bad and the other dumb. Musk is just a fool who happens to be dirty rich. And yes, he’s dangerous, since anyone with that much money has too much power and therefore could be a danger to others. But people are stupid, too: they don’t understand that aligning yourself with the far right isn’t necessarily againt the law (unless a law is clearly being broken, such as promulgating hate speech, or committing acts of hate toward others, or discriminating against others, for any reason, etc). But smashing up other people’s property, is always against the law, and only crazy or stupid people do that.
As I say: insanity and stupidity are members of the same family.
Drumpf wants a violent reaction to his malevolence. This would give him the justification to declare a ” state of emergency, ” suspend the Constitution and imprison dissenters. He is a frontman for Project 2025. He probably has an aide read it to him daily for instructions.
It’s funny, in a way. When I was 19, I thought I had all of the answers. Mow, I don’t know what the f–k the answer is.