Boring Company cited for almost 800 environmental violations in Las Vegas

Musk’s stance on regulation and fines

• The quoted view that permits should be replaced with post‑hoc penalties is seen by many as revealing how tiny fines become just a nuisance or a “permit after the fact,” especially for billionaires and limited‑liability corporations.
• Some argue this attitude is common across income levels; others say the scale and impact of corporate violations (e.g., poisoning land or people) make it qualitatively different.
• A minority agree in principle with “ask forgiveness, not permission,” but say fines must be far higher and tied to full cleanup costs.

Are environmental rules overbearing or essential?

• One camp views environmental review as excessively legalistic, weaponized by NIMBYs, and a major drag on infrastructure and innovation.
• Others counter that many cited “bad regulations” are really protections against powerful incumbents or harmful practices; innovation is less important than health and safety.
• There’s debate over whether the “truth is in the middle” or whether that framing itself is a fallacy.

Nature and seriousness of the Boring Co. violations

• Commenters highlight reports of chemical burns, ankle‑deep contaminated water, toxic sludge from curing accelerants, and firefighters needing decontamination after rescues.
• Critics say these are clearly “real hazards,” not technicalities; defenders suggest such chemicals are common on construction sites but concede worker protections may have been inadequate.
• Repeated failure to hire an independent environmental inspector and alleged dumping of sludge on a vacant in‑town lot are seen as systemic, not isolated mistakes.

Adequacy and structure of penalties

• Strong anger at regulators reducing nearly 800 violations to about $250k in fines; many frame this as a “bulk discount” that cannot change behavior.
• Several argue fines not scaled to wealth or profits become just a cost of doing business, socializing environmental and health costs.

Vegas Loop as transportation

• Skeptics stress its very low throughput vs. real rail, single‑lane tunnels, driver‑operated Teslas, safety concerns (fires, floods, no evacuation tunnels), and call it a “shittier subway.”
• Supporters describe it as an experimental, early‑stage system that could lead to cheaper deep tunneling and eventually reduce surface car infrastructure; critics say tunneling for cars can never scale like subways or buses.

Broader environmental externalities

• Some extend the pattern to other ventures (e.g., satellite re‑entry pollution, rocket launches), debating whether these impacts are negligible vs. understudied and potentially serious.
• Underlying thread: privatized gains vs. public risks, and whether current regulatory regimes can meaningfully constrain very large firms and ultra‑wealthy founders.