RIFFS: Musk's AI opposes Musk's power grab
I asked Grok about the unelected billionaire's attempted administrative coup
This morning, I asked Elon Musk’s AI tool, Grok, what it thought about an unelected and very wealthy private citizen presuming to commandeer federal authority. This is what I learned.
Do unelected private citizens have any right, under American constitutional law and federal law, to intervene in such areas as Treasury Department payment systems and shutting down agencies like USAID?
Under American constitutional law and federal law, unelected private citizens generally do not have the authority to directly intervene in or control operations such as Treasury Department payment systems or to shut down federal agencies like USAID. Here's a breakdown of why:
Constitutional Framework:
Separation of Powers: The U.S. Constitution establishes a separation of powers where the legislative branch (Congress) makes laws, the executive branch (including agencies like the Treasury and USAID) implements them, and the judicial branch interprets them. Private citizens are not part of this structure in terms of direct governance or control over federal operations.
Executive Authority: The President, as head of the executive branch, has the authority to manage federal agencies, including those like the Treasury and USAID. This control does not extend to private citizens unless they are appointed to positions within the government.
Federal Law and Regulations:
Delegation of Authority: Only officials appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, or those within the executive branch's hierarchy, have the legal authority to make significant decisions regarding federal operations. Private citizens can influence policy through lobbying, public opinion, or legal action, but not through direct control.
Legal Restrictions: There are numerous laws, regulations, and security measures in place to protect federal operations from unauthorized interference. For instance, the management of federal payment systems, like those handled by the Treasury, is governed by strict protocols to ensure security and integrity.
Judicial Oversight:
Judicial Branch: Courts can intervene in federal agency actions if they are challenged in lawsuits, but this is through a legal process where private citizens can sue for redress, not directly manage or shut down agencies.
Exceptions and Influence:
Whistleblower Protection: While not intervention in the operational sense, private citizens, especially those employed by or contractors to these agencies, can legally raise concerns about wrongdoing under whistleblower protections.
Public and Political Influence: Citizens can influence policy through voting, participating in the political process, or by influencing public opinion, which can indirectly affect how agencies operate or are funded.
Direct Action by Private Citizens:
Cybersecurity Threats: If a private citizen were to attempt to intervene directly (e.g., through hacking), this would be illegal, potentially leading to criminal charges under federal laws like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
In summary, while private citizens have rights to influence government through democratic means, they do not have legal rights under U.S. law to directly intervene in or shut down federal operations like those of the Treasury or USAID. Any form of direct intervention would be outside the scope of legal authority and likely criminal in nature.
What should we do if an unelected billionaire is indeed trying to do these kind of things?
If an unelected billionaire is attempting to intervene in federal operations like managing the Treasury Department's payment systems or shutting down agencies like USAID, here are steps that could be taken:
Legal Action:
File Lawsuits: Individuals, organizations, or government entities can file lawsuits in federal courts to challenge such actions. This could include actions for injunctive relief to stop unauthorized interventions or to seek damages if harm has been done.
Seek Judicial Review: Challenge the legality of the billionaire's actions by seeking judicial review. Courts can rule on whether these actions infringe on constitutional principles like separation of powers.
Congressional Oversight:
Investigations: Congress can initiate investigations through committees or special commissions to look into these actions. This might involve subpoenaing documents, calling for testimonies, and potentially leading to legislative action.
Legislation: Congress could pass new laws or amend existing ones to explicitly prevent such interventions by private citizens or to enhance protections for federal systems and agencies.
Government Action:
Executive Response: The President or relevant executive branch officials could publicly denounce the actions and ensure that appropriate federal law enforcement or oversight bodies are engaged.
Agency Protocols: Federal agencies might need to review and strengthen their security measures and protocols to prevent unauthorized access or influence.
Public and Media Pressure:
Public Awareness: Use media platforms to raise public awareness. Investigative journalism can bring attention to these issues, potentially leading to public outcry.
Advocacy: Nonprofits, watchdog groups, and citizens can organize protests, petitions, or advocacy campaigns to pressure both the government and the billionaire to stop any illegal or unethical activities.
Regulatory and Law Enforcement:
Federal Investigations: Agencies like the FBI or the Department of Justice could investigate if any laws have been broken, especially if there's evidence of hacking, fraud, or misuse of government resources.
Cybersecurity: If the intervention involves attempts to access or control government systems, cybersecurity measures should be reinforced, and any breaches reported.
Ethical and Professional Accountability:
Corporate Responsibility: If the billionaire is acting through a corporation, shareholders or corporate governance bodies might take action to address any misuse of corporate power for private gain in political arenas.
International Reaction:
If the actions have implications beyond U.S. borders, international organizations or other countries might express concerns or take diplomatic actions.
The key is to ensure transparency, accountability, and adherence to the rule of law. Each step involves navigating a complex web of legal, political, and ethical considerations, where the goal is to protect the integrity of governmental functions while ensuring that no individual, regardless of wealth or influence, can bypass legal or democratic processes.
What do you think would drive the psychology of someone trying to do this? Why would they want to risk breaking the law in these ways when they already have so much success and so many resources?
The psychology behind an unelected billionaire attempting to control or disrupt federal operations could stem from various complex motivations:
Power and Control:
Desire for Influence: Despite having immense resources, some individuals crave more direct control over political or societal structures. This might be driven by a need to shape policy or society according to their vision or ideology, which they feel cannot be achieved through traditional means like lobbying or philanthropy.
Narcissism and Ego:
Grandiosity: Billionaires might possess narcissistic traits where they believe they are uniquely capable of solving large-scale problems or that they should have a say in governance because of their success in business. This could lead to a disregard for legal boundaries if they view themselves above the law or the system.
Fear of Loss or Change:
Protecting Interests: If the billionaire perceives that certain government actions could negatively impact their business or personal wealth, they might take extreme measures to prevent or alter these actions, seeing it as a protective rather than an aggressive move.
Ideological or Political Goals:
Vision for Society: They might have a strong ideological stance or political agenda that they feel is not being adequately addressed by current government actions. This could lead to a willingness to break laws if they believe the ends justify the means.
Thrill-Seeking Behavior:
Risk as Excitement: For some, the thrill of manipulating systems or outsmarting government controls could be a form of extreme sport or a way to combat boredom, especially if they've exhausted conventional challenges.
Misguided Altruism:
Belief in Good Intentions: They might genuinely believe their interventions would improve governance or public welfare, even if the methods are unlawful. This could be coupled with a hubris that their judgment is superior to existing systems.
Legacy and Historical Impact:
Wanting to Leave a Mark: Some might aim to leave a lasting legacy, believing that their actions will be vindicated by history, regardless of current legal or ethical standards.
Psychological Entitlement:
Entitlement: Success can sometimes breed a sense of entitlement where legal norms seem like inconvenient obstacles rather than necessary boundaries for societal order.
Lack of Accountability:
Perceived Immunity: Wealth and status might give them a false sense of immunity from legal consequences, either due to previous experiences where they've managed to navigate around legal issues or because they believe they can afford the best legal defense.
Distorted Perception of Reality:
Echo Chambers: Surrounded by yes-men or in environments where their ideas are rarely challenged, they might lose touch with reality, thinking their actions are justified or unseen.
Risking breaking the law in such ways could also be influenced by:
Legal Ambiguities: If they perceive there are gray areas in law or if previous actions by others have gone unpunished, they might feel emboldened.
Resource Availability: With their resources, they might believe they can mitigate or manage any fallout from legal action.
Historical Precedents: Instances where wealthy individuals or corporations have influenced government without facing significant repercussions might encourage similar behavior.
Understanding these motivations involves recognizing that while wealth and success provide many opportunities, they can also lead to unique psychological challenges and distortions of one's sense of morality, legality, and societal role.
Musk and the MAU-MAU Cult
A little more than a half-century ago, Richard Nixon commissioned a secret task force within the White House to determine the source of leaks of inside information on the functioning of the administration. They became known as the “Plumbers” and eventually went far beyond their original brief to become a criminal enterprise.
Now we have a new group of “plumbers” at work within the structure of our government, but this time the charge is not to find “leaks,” but to locate and operate the shutoff valve on the flow of money appropriated by Congress. This new group operates less clandestinely than the earlier one, but with a far more malicious intent and pernicious effect.
By allowing Elon Musk and his cohort of “yes-boys” (many of them are too young to qualify as “yes-men”) access to the payments system run by the Department of Treasury, the present administration has sanctioned the usurpation of the power of the purse. And the goal is not merely to shut off “wasteful” foreign aid, but to make obsolete the very notion of governance by the rule of law.
I have dubbed this cabal the cult of “MAU-MAU.” In place of MAGA, the operative “principle” is to “Make America Unrecognizable,” and to “Make America Unworkable.” Hence “MAU-MAU.” The only goal is to tear apart not just the layers of the so-called “Deep State,” but to render into ashes our expectations of what we can expect in the way of stability and predictability from our government. In a word, chaos.
It’s not difficult to ascertain the motive for this nefarious undertaking. In the absence of any recognizable standard for judging the legitimacy of the actions of our leaders, the only rule becomes the raw assertion of power. And what is the source of that power? Not some overarching vision of the good of the people at large, but the number of zeroes to the left of the decimal point needed to estimate one’s net worth. Only those with at least eight zeroes have any chance of being admitted into the cult. And there are enough of those to form a formidable cadre of self-selected rulers.
In an ethical world, the maxim “Actions speak louder than words,” has some meaning. In the cult of MAU-MAU, that has morphed into “Money speaks louder than votes.” A fairly straight line runs from the holding of Citizens United to the present moment.
The best hope for extirpating this cult lies in the righteous anger of those who did not vote for a transformation of democracy into a crapshoot run by a gang with loaded dice. That includes not only Democrats, but those who voted for the President in the belief that only the mistaken and misguided policies of the previous administration would be eliminated, while preserving the qualities that allow for our country to achieve greatness, however measured or conceived. For those who want the government to “run like a business,” you can’t support handing over the checkbook to someone who isn’t even an employee.
If this is real, and I truly hope it is, it should find its way onto the front page of every newspaper in the country and be the lead segment on every newscast, whether broadcast or cable. Amazing.