“Fights between individuals, as well as governments and nations”  Nikola Tesla wrote in 1905, “invariably result from misunderstandings in the broadest interpretation of this term. Misunderstandings are always caused by the inability of appreciating one another’s point of view.”

The quote strikes me as apt and applicable to the recent wave of vandalism, arson, etc. against the cars named for the man.  There’s a lot of misunderstanding involved, and  Elon Musk, owner of Tesla, Inc., correctly addresses the matter:

“That’s somebody else’s car. Leave it alone.”

You may not like Elon Musk very much, and I won’t try to convince you that your dislike isn’t justified.

He became one of the richest men — some say THE richest —  on Earth in large part due to his keen eye for corporate welfare opportunities. Even if you’ve never bought one of his products, you’ve been paying him with your tax dollars for years.

Now he’s wormed his way into a direct government role, taking a fire ax to programs and institutions you may consider good or even necessary through the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) while, unsurprisingly, his own take from the government till seems to be increasing rather than decreasing.

If you don’t like Musk, you can and should avoid buying/using the products and services he offers: Not just Tesla’s vehicles, but social media platform X (formerly Twitter) and Internet Service Provider Starlink.

You might also do what you can (very little, I’m sorry to say) to oppose his corporate welfare take via government contracts for SpaceX, tax credits for purchases of Tesla vehicles, etc.

What you shouldn’t do, because it’s both wrong and stupid, is vandalize or destroy any of the more than 4 million Tesla vehicles currently on the road worldwide.

Why it’s wrong: They’re not yours.

Other people bought them. Other people own them. Even if vandalizing or destroying Musk’s property is a reasonable form of self-expression (it isn’t), vandalizing or destroying the property of someone who’s never done you any harm, just because they once bought something from Elon Musk, isn’t.

Why it’s stupid: Setting someone else’s Model 3 or Cybertruck on fire won’t stop Musk from doing things you dislike. In fact, it may actually help him continue doing things you dislike.

US president Donald Trump has already slapped the label “terrorism” on such vandalism. That probably presages yet another welfare revenue stream for Musk in the form of making Tesla’s in-house insurance company whole for any claims arising from the attacks.

Trump’s “base” is already turning out at Tesla dealerships to counter anti-Musk protesters … and maybe buy one of his cars.

The silliness of keying, crashing into, or burning someone else’s Tesla lets Musk run the perennial Trumpian play: Using other people’s misfortune to paint himself as “the victim.” He can probably ride that self-serving whine all the way to the financial and political bank.

Even if acting in a counterproductive manner doesn’t bother you, being wrong when Musk is right should. That’s somebody else’s car. Leave it alone.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Since Donald Trump’s second presidential inauguration on January 20, the news cycle keeps coming back around to two questions.

Every time Trump issues, or federal agencies attempt to implement, an unconstitutional executive order — one or both of which happen on a near-daily basis — journalists and pundits want to know:

First, will the courts order a halt to the executive branch’s latest   roughshod running over of the US Constitution?

Second, if the courts do so rule, will the administration comply with those rulings?

I find that line of questioning rather odd, since history’s already answered it for us many times over the Constitution’s 230-odd years of supposed rule.

The answer to both questions is “maybe, maybe not.”

American government — legislative, executive, and judicial branches alike — point to the Constitution when it supports their desires and ignores it when it thwarts those desires.

The Supreme Court in particular boasts a long record of changing its mind, reinterpreting the Constitution’s usually fairly clear commands based on deference to both popular opinion and the immediate goals of the other two branches, rendering the interpretation of law most favorable to government actors even in contradiction to that law’s own text, and hiding in chambers when its occasional ruling the other way gets ignored or “worked around.”

We need look no further back than March 26 for an example of how well we can expect the Constitution to fare versus when the Supreme Court weighs its requirements against executive edicts contradicting those requirements.

In Vanderstok v. Bondi (formerly Vanderstok v. Garland — Trump’s appointee to the office of US Attorney General took the case over from Biden’s), the court ruled that:

1. A rogue federal agency (the  US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) may
2. Apply an unconstitutional federal law (the Gun Control Act of 1968) to
3. Objects which that law’s text does not cover and never has covered.

The objects at issue are “ghost gun” kits. They’re not guns. They’re just collections of parts that, with some work and possibly additional components, can be made into guns.

The text of the GCA didn’t cover “ghost gun” kits and, as Justice Neil Gorsuch openly admits in the majority ruling, had no reason to: “[T]he milling equipment, materials needed, and designs were far too expensive for individuals to make firearms practically or reliably on their own.”

Beyond magically reinterpreting the text, meaning, and intent of the GCA, the court also just ignored the plain language, and the clear and unambiguous meaning, of the Second Amendment: “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In noting that it refers to “a right of the people,” the Constitution’s proscription applies not just to the federal government and all its agencies, but to state and local governments as well.

In addition to being stupid and evil, “gun control” legislation, of any kind, at any level of government, violates the “Supreme Law of the Land.” Period.

Don’t expect the courts to protect your rights. They quit that job long ago.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Effective April 3, US president Donald Trump announced on March 26, Americans will pay a 25% tax (above and beyond existing taxes) on imported cars.

The measure includes “temporary exemptions for auto parts” while tax vultures “sort through the complexity” of implementing Tariff Man’s latest scheme for picking your pocket, but the massive tax hike will eventually also hit US auto manufacturers who rely on imported parts for cars assembled domestically and sold as “Made In America.”

Undetermined: Whether United Auto Workers president Shawn Fain believes the workers he claims to represent are idiots, whether he’s an idiot himself, or both. “These tariffs are a major step in the right direction,” Fain says in a UAW press release, “for autoworkers and blue-collar communities across the country.”

The release refers to the misnamed North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as a “free trade disaster” that has “has devastated the working class.”

Wrong on all counts.

NAFTA isn’t “free trade,” it’s government-managed trade with slightly fewer restrictions and barriers than prior to its 1994 implementation.

Far from a “disaster” that has “devastated the working class,” both US manufacturing output and the real US median wage are far higher since NAFTA than before — the former by about 36%, the latter by about 30%.

US auto industry employment increased for nearly a decade after NAFTA’s implementation, came down with increased automation, then increased again to about the pre-NAFTA level.

In 1993, the US produced about 11.2 million motor vehicles; in 2023, 10.6 million. That may have something to do with the 100,000-mile average lifespan of a car built in 1993 versus the 200,000-mile lifespan of a car built in 2024.

Yes, many auto workers had to find new jobs once imported vehicles were allowed to compete with American-built vehicles. Yes, that made some of their lives harder and left some of them worse off, at least temporarily and sometimes long-term.

Welcome to the real world, where auto workers aren’t unique and special snowflakes who never have to change careers like the rest of us. The average American changes jobs 12 times in his or her lifetime … and the average American, including one who worked on a Ford assembly line at some point, is more prosperous now than he or she was in 1993.

Trump’s cockamamie tariff schemes might well have been intentionally tailored to undo all that.

Shawn Fain’s fantasy — hordes of new dues-paying UAW workers — will remain a fantasy.

Average car prices, adjusted for inflation, are already nearly 30% higher now than they were in 1993. Trump’s 25% tax on imports, which will result in a near-25% price increase on domestically produced cars and a massive increase in the price of used cars, will have the following result:

Americans will buy fewer cars. Not just fewer imported cars, fewer cars, period. They’ll coax longer lives out of their old beaters and look into other modes of transportation.

Those Americans, including auto workers, will also be paying more for groceries and the various necessities of life.

Enjoy your “victory” bash, Shawn. Neither you nor your union’s members will enjoy the hangover.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY