Philosophy Now Forum

"Oh sure, the Tesla Model S may be the "best car sold in America" per Consumer Reports, and it may be a Wall Street darling and perhaps the only electric vehicles for which demand exceeds supply. But that didn't stop regulators in New Jersey from ordering Tesla to shut down its stores by April 1 because the company doesn't use dealers like every other automaker.

In a hastily called meeting packed with Tesla supporters, the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission approved several rule changes that essentially shut down Tesla's two factory-direct stores in the state — not only barring automakers from selling without dealers, but also the mall showrooms that Tesla had used in place of a traditional stand-alone dealership.

Oh sure, the Tesla Model S may be the "best car sold in America" per Consumer Reports, and it may be a Wall Street darling and perhaps the only electric vehicles for which demand exceeds supply. But that didn't stop regulators in New Jersey from ordering Tesla to shut down its stores by April 1 because the company doesn't use dealers like every other automaker.

In a hastily called meeting packed with Tesla supporters, the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission approved several rule changes that essentially shut down Tesla's two factory-direct stores in the state — not only barring automakers from selling without dealers, but also the mall showrooms that Tesla had used in place of a traditional stand-alone dealership.

The commission had proposed the changes last year, and Tesla had asked it to hold off and allow the state legislature to weigh in on whether Tesla's model was allowed by state law. But in its order, the commission rejects Tesla's concerns about lost sales, consumer preference and the company potentially having to cut 27 jobs, saying Tesla should have to meet the same rules as any other automaker.

"There is no evidence that the franchise system results in a monopoly, the stifling of innovation, an increase in pollution, or dependency on oil," the commission wrote in its comments, adding that state franchise laws "result in fair competition among new car dealers and prevent manufacturers from creating a monopoly, which ultimately results in a benefit to consumers."

The step is just the latest battle between Tesla and car dealers over the company's insistence that it can and should sell Model S sedans directly to its customers. Texas, Virginia and Arizona have also put limits on Tesla's mall-store approach, and dealers have filed lawsuits in New York, Ohio, Massachusetts and elsewhere.

Tesla attempted to drum up support among its customers, but said in a blog that it was given less than 24 hours notice of the meeting where the commission would hold its final vote. It also accused the administration of Gov. Chris Christie of backtracking on pledges to let Tesla argue its case in the public forum of the New Jersey legislature.

Dealers — most of whom are family-owned businesses — have long contended Tesla should not be granted special treatment under state franchising laws, and that consumers are better off with dealers who don't work for the factory. Today's move adds some more juice to the debate, but it's also worth noting the diplomatic position of AutoNation, the nation's largest chain of new-car dealerships. Tesla's stance has the support of many of its buyers and fans, but there are only so many states it can lose in before it will make sense to just let dealers have the key fobs. -As reported on yahoo.com

Why have you started posting in bold bob, and I think what you have outlined sounds pretty sensible actually?

What is your point bob it's not clear who are you saying are the bad guys here..?

Your capitalist crony in the topic does not cover exactly what point you are trying to make?

Blaggard wrote:Why have you started posting in bold bob, and I think what you have outlined sounds pretty sensible actually?

What is your point bob it's not clear who are you saying are the bad guys here..?

Your capitalist crony in the topic does not cover exactly what point you are trying to make?

I use bold type when I quote another source with attribution. The bad guys are the government telling people how and when they can buy and sell things. This is crony capitalism, where the government makes laws that benefit certain companies at the expense of other companies that pose an economic threat of some kind. Free-market capitalism without senseless interference from the government is the only proper economic system.

bobevenson wrote:

Blaggard wrote:Why have you started posting in bold bob, and I think what you have outlined sounds pretty sensible actually?

What is your point bob it's not clear who are you saying are the bad guys here..?

Your capitalist crony in the topic does not cover exactly what point you are trying to make?

I use bold type when I quote another source with attribution. The bad guys are the government telling people how and when they can buy and sell things. This is crony capitalism, where the government makes laws that benefit certain companies at the expense of other companies that pose an economic threat of some kind. Free-market capitalism without senseless interference from the government is the only proper economic system.

Given all of this and the other examples of government "tyranny" that appear to be quite numerous. How can you say that you are a free nation? You give us the impression of the exact opposite.

If Bob's point is that this is senseless (though I completely reject any use of the word "appropriate" because he uses that word in ridiculous meanings like we're in Victorian Britain), then I agree with him.

First of all, I see no reason why having a store just for one car should likely lead to a monopoly, since people in developed countries can easily go to the store next by and get a different car... if they have money to buy a car then they bloody can buy a bus ticket as well. Apple store never lead to an IPhone monopoly, for gods sake I've personally barely touched an IPhone and have little to no interest in buying one. My Android Samsung Galaxy Express is the best purchase I could've imagined in terms of cost-efficiency, and I certainly didn't spend that much money by just buying the first thing I could find.

In an Internet Age like the one we live in, it's actually kind of preposterous that this should be the case. We all have access to transport ourselves to any nearby stores, we can get virtually anything delivered, we have access to huge amounts of information and reviews etc... there is no clue whatsoever that there's even close to such a thing as a monopoly threat. What I can smell is an old out-dated way of thinking, the lurking of grey-haired bureaucrats and a hint of desperate voices coming from a dying out-dated business-model under threat from a superior new-arrival. This is abusive impediment of progress, not genuine anti-monopolism.

Ginkgo wrote:Given all of this and the other examples of government "tyranny" that appear to be quite numerous. How can you say that you are a free nation? You give us the impression of the exact opposite.

Although the U.S. is far from being a free country, in comparison to the rest of the world, we do look free.

Actually the way you describe the US I am lucky not to live their sounds like some weird dystopian capitalist obsessed right wing state, not a libertarian paradise at all let alone a liberal republic, especially after Bush's moron train rolled over your constitution. I wonder how the founding fathers would view the so called freest nation on Earth?

Blaggard wrote:Actually the way you describe the US I am lucky not to live their sounds like some weird dystopian capitalist obsessed right wing state, not a libertarian paradise at all let alone a liberal republic, especially after Bush's moron train rolled over your constitution. I wonder how the founding fathers would view the so called freest nation on Earth?

Our founding fathers didn't trust government, but the rest of the world does, and therein lies the problem.

bobevenson wrote:

Blaggard wrote:Actually the way you describe the US I am lucky not to live their sounds like some weird dystopian capitalist obsessed right wing state, not a libertarian paradise at all let alone a liberal republic, especially after Bush's moron train rolled over your constitution. I wonder how the founding fathers would view the so called freest nation on Earth?

Our founding fathers didn't trust government, but the rest of the world does, and therein lies the problem.

Er I don't trust government, and since the Greek's first used satire such as the Sword of Damocles, neither has any other culture, Plato wrote a book about The Republic, you might want to take a gander.

There's a pub in my neck of the woods called the Honest Politician, which is another satirical swipe at politics. Unlike the eponymous politician it does exist though... Beers a bit flat though...

The founding fathers trusted government, they were it, are you saying they didn't trust themselves.

John Hancock I suspect had a bit of an ego though.

Blaggard wrote:The founding fathers trusted government, they were it, are you saying they didn't trust themselves.

They didn't trust a central government (having just gone through Holy Hell with the British), and our Constitution and Bill of Rights is a testament to that.

bobevenson wrote:

Blaggard wrote:The founding fathers trusted government, they were it, are you saying they didn't trust themselves.

They didn't trust a central government (having just gone through Holy Hell with the British), and our Constitution and Bill of Rights is a testament to that.

The written constitution wasn't bad idea but like most things committed to paper it doesn't age well, and I include the Bible in that statement.

I think Hamurabai's code of laws has dated better than The Bible, being as it was the first to introduce the idea of an eye for an eye in which he weighed a life as worth one talent of gold (an unimaginably large sum of money even then), ironically meant to discourage vigilantism and fueding between families, The Jews were not the most peaceful of peoples and inter family feuds were common as were revenge attacks, and the monetary value was meant to compensate the victims family although not to completely remove the guilt of the offender, to put it plainly that sort of sum would be enough for the entire family to live on for the rest of their lives and then some. 4000 years later we still have death row in some countries, just goes to show any good idea can be perverted...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcCBoGevymE

"Dead man walking on the green mile."

Stephen King: The Green Mile

"If thine eye offends thee pluck it out."

The Bible.

It's ironic that cruel and unusual punishment does not include passing a massive electric current through someone which is agonizing and basically is akin to burning someone inside out, or burning at the stake, while the family sit and watch in some odd sort of revenge. Makes no fucking sense at all... As someone so wisely opined "an eye for an eye makes everyone go blind."

I know justice is blind but is it also retarded?

Blaggard wrote:The written constitution wasn't bad idea but like most things committed to paper it doesn't age well, and I include the Bible in that statement.

The U.S. Constitution ages just fine if the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government actually followed it. The only part of the Bible of importance is the book of Revelation, and it also ages just fine.

bobevenson wrote:

Blaggard wrote:The founding fathers trusted government, they were it, are you saying they didn't trust themselves.

They didn't trust a central government (having just gone through Holy Hell with the British), and our Constitution and Bill of Rights is a testament to that.

Some didn't trust a central government. Your Constitution and Bill of Rights is a compromise between those who supported Federalism and those who supported Statism. You Bill of Rights was implemented in order to appease the Anti-Federalists.

Ginkgo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Blaggard wrote:The founding fathers trusted government, they were it, are you saying they didn't trust themselves.

They didn't trust a central government (having just gone through Holy Hell with the British), and our Constitution and Bill of Rights is a testament to that.

Some didn't trust a central government. Your Constitution and Bill of Rights is a compromise between those who supported Federalism and those who supported Statism. You Bill of Rights was implemented in order to appease the Anti-Federalists.

It's the best thing since sliced bread, canned beer and the Magna Carta

bobevenson wrote: It's the best thing since sliced bread, canned beer and the Magna Carta

See King John was actually quite a good king, despite what that Robin Hood myth claims. He laid a foundation on which the entire UK constitution came to be based by limiting the authority of kings, although few tenets survive, the only written one being the right to be tried under English law by the peasantry or by peers or whatever, ie all people are equal under the law, before then the lower classes had virtually no rights at all and were basically bonded slaves...

I think canned beer was better, but meh each to his own.