5 ms·

This is what pg tweeted earlier today: Banning Tesla is an index of the corruptness of state governments as banning Uber is of city governments. (https://twitt

by oskarth 13y ago

This is what pg tweeted earlier today: Banning Tesla is an index of the corruptness of state governments as banning Uber is of city governments. (https://twitter.com/paulg/status/443469758369767425 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/443469758369767425) A very astute observation, as usual.

joesmo 13y ago
Couldn't agree more. It's amazing anything that isn't corrupt ever happens in New Jersey's government. Or, at least, I assume things that aren't corrupt do happen at least once in a blue moon. I suppose they got tired of selling kidneys and found a new victim.
npizzolato 13y ago
Or, alternately, Uber ignores local taxi regulations and then is surprised when cities fight back. I haven't been following the Tesla issue closely, but their attitude does not seem similar to Uber's, which, personally, makes all the difference.
- AJ007 13y ago
  The cynic says the more things you regulate, the more industries that can donate money to your political campaign and hire you when you retire. Some regulation serves a purpose. All regulation can be justified with some sort of logic. That doesn't mean it is either necessary or a net benefit to society. Proponents claim that cities need to regulate Uber to ensure passenger safety. Meanwhile an NYPost investigation found of the 16 fatalities caused by cab drivers since 2009, all but 2 kept driving cabs. ( http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/cabbies-who-kill-or-maim-in-nyc-keep-licenses-return-to-work/ http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/cabbies-who-kill-or-maim-in-nyc... ) May be its different in other cities. I haven't been kidnapped by a cab driver in NYC, yet at least. The Tesla dealership issue is more erroneous and transparent to me than Uber. Car dealerships are a public nuisance. No one would argue we need more middle men for electronics, clothes, or food. Why for cars? The current structure makes it easy for dealers to get away with dishonest business practices. Mechanics are paid to do repairs as fast as possible, increasing the chance of future failures. Car companies are vulnerable to large class action lawsuits while a single dealership is hardly worth an expert lawyer's time. Heavily regulated environments repel innovation. Regulations, both in Uber's case and Tesla's are written by the incumbents for the incumbents. Follow the letter of the law and instead of a sleek new structure you produce a disfigured chimera, which probably will piss money. Perhaps one of the best things the internet provided us was a regulation minimal environment. You could put up a website and try new things with out having to worry about getting shaken down. I hope the future web won't be full of rampant EU-mandated privacy notices and DMCA federal government web site registries. Uber and Tesla don't have a choice. If they want to provide high quality services, laws have to be broken. It is unfortunate that you need to be a large and well funded company to force much needed changes on state and local regulators. I predict that cities and states which are friendly toward innovation will do better by leaps and bounds in the long run. Betting against change and efficiency tends to be hazardous.
- nickff 13y ago
  Many states had pre-existing laws which barred auto-makers from selling directly to consumers, this is not significantly different from the many cities which have barred unlicensed taxi operators for a long time. The states are simply the ones 'fighting back' here.
- baddox 13y ago
  What makes you think that Uber is surprised? Or did you mean that Uber is upset? Being upset at an occurrence is perfectly reasonable, even if you predicted it would occur.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
pg1598 13y ago
We need a Congressional member to introduce a bill to allow direct sales between car manufacturers and consumers, pronto. If it passes, that would trump any state law that bans that practice.
- lostlogin 13y ago
  Congress... pronto. I don't see this happening.
- objclxt 13y ago
  It is not as simple as federal law 'trumping' state law - congress enacting a law specifically to override a state would be problematic, even if constitutionally solid. You are not considering the implications of congress interfering in a relatively minor state matter when it refuses to legislate on more pressing state/federal issues (gay marriage, legalising cannabis, etc).
  - nickff 13y ago
    There would be no problem with Congress overriding the state laws. Federal laws always have precedence over state laws, and the federal congress has specific authorization to regulate trade among the several states in the commerce clause of the constitution.[1] Congress has the constitutional authority to ban substances such as cannabis, but not to compel states to allow them.[2] Congress has no authority to interfere with family law, which has always been a matter for the states.[3] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor
    - bmelton 13y ago
      > Federal laws always have precedence over state laws Be careful with the word 'always'. If a federal law were unconstitutional, and an equivalent state law were not, then clearly it would not trump the state law. Similarly, despite the modern interpretations of the Commerce Clause, there are Constitutionally imposed limits on federal authority, and they're prescribed a very narrow set of privileges by the Constitution. Depending on the law and its execution, we could very well see a state exercising its rights trump the Commerce Clause. Gary Marbut has fairly carefully crafted such a challenge with his "Montana Buckeroo" rifle which is expressly designed, built and sold only within the confines of Montana, specifically to challenge the Commerce Clause's authority of its manufacture. That said, he's got some 80-odd years of precedent to overcome, but there may be a quorum that much of that precedent is bad precedent, though it's still a gamble as to whether or not that matters.
sheetjs 13y ago
PG is off the mark here. Companies like Uber explicitly ignore the existing laws and regulations. In the case of Tesla, the ruling just passed.
- dmix 13y ago
  The laws are equally quaint. Despite their precedence.
  - objclxt 13y ago
    They're not equally quaint. There is a big difference between laws that regulate taxis and laws requiring cars to be sold only be third-party dealers. Taxi laws in many cities exist to both protect consumers (with criminal background checks and additional vehicle requirements), ensure parts of the city get served equally (requiring taxis to accept fares), and establish clear chains of liability. I don't believe there are anywhere near comparable safety arguments you can make for only allowing third-party dealerships. Here's my two cents (you don't have to buy into it) - taxicab laws and regulations are frequently imperfect, and there is certainly an element of protectionism and cronyism. On the other hand, I don't want to live in a place without them. There is a reason that when I previous lived in London you'd often see "Don't take unlicensed cabs at night" adverts up at bus shelters. These laws are imperfect, but also necessary. Edit: As someone has pointed out, dealerships make a similar safety argument. That said, I would imagine most rational people are able to see the difference between the two. It is still possible to regulate the sale of cars and allow manufacturers to sell directly. Similarly, I think it's possibly to have taxi laws that allow Uber to operate freely but also ensure the safety of those using the service. Regulated taxi systems are worthwhile - if you don't think they are, try living somewhere with significant crime. Last year I ended up getting posted to Medellin, Colombia for a month - a city with one of the highest murder and violent crime rates in the world. However, it is also a city with a highly regulated taxi system, with criminal background checks and vehicle restrictions. I would happily get into a cab there at 1AM. I would not have considered it if there were zero regulations and restrictions on who could drive a cab, and what cars they could use.
    - 13y ago
victoro 13y ago
Didn't see him complaining when the government was subsidizing Tesla's R&D with cheap loans and tax incentives [1]. The government giveth and the government taketh away. Not saying I agree with this decision by NJ, but its somewhat disingenuous to take a moralistic argument (corruption) at face value from a party that possibly stands to benefit financially from the alternative decision. (Yes I'm assuming that pg is a Tesla stockholder). [1] - http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324659404578499460139237952 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142412788732465940...
- mediaman 13y ago
  Help me understand. Are you arguing that PG (or anyone) cannot take the position that the federal government subsidizing the EV sector is good, while simultaneously taking the position that a state government caving to incumbent political pressure to pass an anti-consumer ruling is bad? Are those two beliefs internally inconsistent in some way? Are you basically arguing that you can either believe in no government involvement, or accept government's involvement on the condition that one must abrogate the moral right to complain about its anti-consumer behavior; that there is no other consistent position to take? Maybe I'm not understanding what exactly you are saying. The second portion of your argument appears to be an ad hominem claim that we should disclaim PG's statements because of the possibility that he may own Tesla equity. Do you have an actual claim beyond that?
  - victoro 13y ago
    The OP asserting that the pg statement in question was "an astute observation" implies that pg is an impartial observer who is in no way biased by his ties to the startup ecosystem. I disagree with that assertion. The pg quote that OP provides is very brief -- State/city govt ruling against Tesla/Uber == corruption -- and more an opinion than a true argument because no evidence/elaboration is provided. That Tesla's (very different) situation is equated with Uber's further points to a hastily voiced opinion rather than a reasoned argument. Hence, I would argue that an ad hominem approach is appropriate because there is not much else to go on. Pg voiced an opinion and I made a statement that mentioned some biases that he was likely to have that informed said opinion.

by oskarth 13y ago

joesmo 13y ago

Couldn't agree more. It's amazing anything that isn't corrupt ever happens in New Jersey's government. Or, at least, I assume things that aren't corrupt do happen at least once in a blue moon. I suppose they got tired of selling kidneys and found a new victim.

npizzolato 13y ago

Or, alternately, Uber ignores local taxi regulations and then is surprised when cities fight back. I haven't been following the Tesla issue closely, but their attitude does not seem similar to Uber's, which, personally, makes all the difference.

AJ007 13y ago
The cynic says the more things you regulate, the more industries that can donate money to your political campaign and hire you when you retire. Some regulation serves a purpose. All regulation can be justified with some sort of logic. That doesn't mean it is either necessary or a net benefit to society. Proponents claim that cities need to regulate Uber to ensure passenger safety. Meanwhile an NYPost investigation found of the 16 fatalities caused by cab drivers since 2009, all but 2 kept driving cabs. ( http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/cabbies-who-kill-or-maim-in-nyc-keep-licenses-return-to-work/ http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/cabbies-who-kill-or-maim-in-nyc... ) May be its different in other cities. I haven't been kidnapped by a cab driver in NYC, yet at least. The Tesla dealership issue is more erroneous and transparent to me than Uber. Car dealerships are a public nuisance. No one would argue we need more middle men for electronics, clothes, or food. Why for cars? The current structure makes it easy for dealers to get away with dishonest business practices. Mechanics are paid to do repairs as fast as possible, increasing the chance of future failures. Car companies are vulnerable to large class action lawsuits while a single dealership is hardly worth an expert lawyer's time. Heavily regulated environments repel innovation. Regulations, both in Uber's case and Tesla's are written by the incumbents for the incumbents. Follow the letter of the law and instead of a sleek new structure you produce a disfigured chimera, which probably will piss money. Perhaps one of the best things the internet provided us was a regulation minimal environment. You could put up a website and try new things with out having to worry about getting shaken down. I hope the future web won't be full of rampant EU-mandated privacy notices and DMCA federal government web site registries. Uber and Tesla don't have a choice. If they want to provide high quality services, laws have to be broken. It is unfortunate that you need to be a large and well funded company to force much needed changes on state and local regulators. I predict that cities and states which are friendly toward innovation will do better by leaps and bounds in the long run. Betting against change and efficiency tends to be hazardous.
nickff 13y ago
Many states had pre-existing laws which barred auto-makers from selling directly to consumers, this is not significantly different from the many cities which have barred unlicensed taxi operators for a long time. The states are simply the ones 'fighting back' here.
baddox 13y ago
What makes you think that Uber is surprised? Or did you mean that Uber is upset? Being upset at an occurrence is perfectly reasonable, even if you predicted it would occur.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

pg1598 13y ago

We need a Congressional member to introduce a bill to allow direct sales between car manufacturers and consumers, pronto. If it passes, that would trump any state law that bans that practice.

lostlogin 13y ago
Congress... pronto. I don't see this happening.
objclxt 13y ago
It is not as simple as federal law 'trumping' state law - congress enacting a law specifically to override a state would be problematic, even if constitutionally solid. You are not considering the implications of congress interfering in a relatively minor state matter when it refuses to legislate on more pressing state/federal issues (gay marriage, legalising cannabis, etc).
- nickff 13y ago
  There would be no problem with Congress overriding the state laws. Federal laws always have precedence over state laws, and the federal congress has specific authorization to regulate trade among the several states in the commerce clause of the constitution.[1] Congress has the constitutional authority to ban substances such as cannabis, but not to compel states to allow them.[2] Congress has no authority to interfere with family law, which has always been a matter for the states.[3] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor
  - bmelton 13y ago
    > Federal laws always have precedence over state laws Be careful with the word 'always'. If a federal law were unconstitutional, and an equivalent state law were not, then clearly it would not trump the state law. Similarly, despite the modern interpretations of the Commerce Clause, there are Constitutionally imposed limits on federal authority, and they're prescribed a very narrow set of privileges by the Constitution. Depending on the law and its execution, we could very well see a state exercising its rights trump the Commerce Clause. Gary Marbut has fairly carefully crafted such a challenge with his "Montana Buckeroo" rifle which is expressly designed, built and sold only within the confines of Montana, specifically to challenge the Commerce Clause's authority of its manufacture. That said, he's got some 80-odd years of precedent to overcome, but there may be a quorum that much of that precedent is bad precedent, though it's still a gamble as to whether or not that matters.

sheetjs 13y ago

PG is off the mark here. Companies like Uber explicitly ignore the existing laws and regulations. In the case of Tesla, the ruling just passed.

dmix 13y ago
The laws are equally quaint. Despite their precedence.
- objclxt 13y ago
  They're not equally quaint. There is a big difference between laws that regulate taxis and laws requiring cars to be sold only be third-party dealers. Taxi laws in many cities exist to both protect consumers (with criminal background checks and additional vehicle requirements), ensure parts of the city get served equally (requiring taxis to accept fares), and establish clear chains of liability. I don't believe there are anywhere near comparable safety arguments you can make for only allowing third-party dealerships. Here's my two cents (you don't have to buy into it) - taxicab laws and regulations are frequently imperfect, and there is certainly an element of protectionism and cronyism. On the other hand, I don't want to live in a place without them. There is a reason that when I previous lived in London you'd often see "Don't take unlicensed cabs at night" adverts up at bus shelters. These laws are imperfect, but also necessary. Edit: As someone has pointed out, dealerships make a similar safety argument. That said, I would imagine most rational people are able to see the difference between the two. It is still possible to regulate the sale of cars and allow manufacturers to sell directly. Similarly, I think it's possibly to have taxi laws that allow Uber to operate freely but also ensure the safety of those using the service. Regulated taxi systems are worthwhile - if you don't think they are, try living somewhere with significant crime. Last year I ended up getting posted to Medellin, Colombia for a month - a city with one of the highest murder and violent crime rates in the world. However, it is also a city with a highly regulated taxi system, with criminal background checks and vehicle restrictions. I would happily get into a cab there at 1AM. I would not have considered it if there were zero regulations and restrictions on who could drive a cab, and what cars they could use.
  - 13y ago

victoro 13y ago

Didn't see him complaining when the government was subsidizing Tesla's R&D with cheap loans and tax incentives [1]. The government giveth and the government taketh away. Not saying I agree with this decision by NJ, but its somewhat disingenuous to take a moralistic argument (corruption) at face value from a party that possibly stands to benefit financially from the alternative decision. (Yes I'm assuming that pg is a Tesla stockholder). [1] - http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324659404578499460139237952 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142412788732465940...

mediaman 13y ago
Help me understand. Are you arguing that PG (or anyone) cannot take the position that the federal government subsidizing the EV sector is good, while simultaneously taking the position that a state government caving to incumbent political pressure to pass an anti-consumer ruling is bad? Are those two beliefs internally inconsistent in some way? Are you basically arguing that you can either believe in no government involvement, or accept government's involvement on the condition that one must abrogate the moral right to complain about its anti-consumer behavior; that there is no other consistent position to take? Maybe I'm not understanding what exactly you are saying. The second portion of your argument appears to be an ad hominem claim that we should disclaim PG's statements because of the possibility that he may own Tesla equity. Do you have an actual claim beyond that?
- victoro 13y ago
  The OP asserting that the pg statement in question was "an astute observation" implies that pg is an impartial observer who is in no way biased by his ties to the startup ecosystem. I disagree with that assertion. The pg quote that OP provides is very brief -- State/city govt ruling against Tesla/Uber == corruption -- and more an opinion than a true argument because no evidence/elaboration is provided. That Tesla's (very different) situation is equated with Uber's further points to a hastily voiced opinion rather than a reasoned argument. Hence, I would argue that an ad hominem approach is appropriate because there is not much else to go on. Pg voiced an opinion and I made a statement that mentioned some biases that he was likely to have that informed said opinion.