6 ms·

Why only (4) stores? Why only "zero-emissions" vehicles? There should be zero limitations on direct to consumer sales for any manufacturer of any product.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- millzlane 12y ago
  Why would anyone care what I buy with my own money and how I spend my free time if I don't harm others?
  - damon_c 12y ago
    I'm concerned that your machine guns have the potential to harm others. The rest though, by all means...
    - randomdata 12y ago
      Maybe we could create a law that makes harming others with machine guns illegal...
      - damon_c 12y ago
        So obvious right? Well, we already have laws that make the possession of heroin illegal. They are broken all the time. With regards to the original point about silly laws that prevent us from spending our money and free time in ways that don't harm others, if person A is walking down the street and person B illegally uses heroin on the same street, person A is not likely to be harmed. You can't really say the same about person B and his/her machine gun.
        cgriswald 12y ago
        You have established that person B is not going to follow the law in any case. So if there is a law in place preventing person B from possessing a machine gun, person B is still going to acquire a machine gun and use it illegally and person A is still harmed. You haven't solved the problem by moving the solution further up the chain, but you have prevented responsible, law-abiding folks from acquiring a machine gun. Laws against possession of heroin and laws against possession of fire arms work the same way with a lot of the same externalities. So it is odd that you would point to the failure of one to advocate for the other.
        zanny 12y ago
        I'm always in favor of the first amendment, but this is one context where outlawing the firearms does make a difference. There is a significant lower penetration of firearms in Europe period since almost every European country bans possession. That does not mean that someone who really wants a machine gun cannot get one - but that it takes a lot more effort to get one. Effort that many deranged and unstable people are not willing or able to dedicate the effort to see to fruition. Even in the age of anonymous online exchanges gun import rates are puny compared to firearm availability in the US. I think it is sound psychology to believe if you make it really hard to get something that an irrational actor will be less likely to pursue destructive behavior. The difference between firearms and drugs is that drug users are recurrent customers and can form an underground economy, the sociopath with a machine gun is often a one time shopper. Seems more economics than anything else as to why it is more infeasible to maintain a firearms black market at scale comparable to the drug market, regardless of ethics.
        minot 12y ago
        > I'm always in favor of the first amendment, but this is one context where outlawing the firearms does make a difference. There is a significant lower penetration of firearms in Europe period since almost every European country bans possession. Did you mean second amendment? Or do you mean that the pro-gun lobby does not have a right to free speech? If it didn't have implications beyond gun control, I might even support it. It is really sad that the only people in the pro-gun lobby are industry shills. Anybody who deviates ever so slightly from the official message gets effectively shut down by the lobby as not being one of them.
    - ctdonath 12y ago
      I'm concerned that too often "potential to harm" is prioritized over with "actual harm is extremely rare, much less so than many things you're not worried about" and "sometimes harm is required to stop someone from causing more harm".
      - jbooth 12y ago
        I'm pro gun rights, but if I could, I'd specifically outlaw sales of guns to anybody who's buying it based on a fantasy of taking out an active shooter.
        Frondo 12y ago
        I like that. I also like the idea of requiring gun owners to buy liability insurance, in the event their gun is used to shoot or kill someone, or damage property; especially in the case of all these "accidental" shootings (which, really, are negligence on the part of the weapon owner).
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - fma 12y ago
    Because that harms the established companies who donate money to the politicians.
- rplnt 12y ago
  I think you misunderstood the meaning of the sentence in this context. Not zero limitations of sale, but zero limitations on direct to consumer sales. I.e. there are limits, but you are not forced to go through middleman just because. So even drugs or guns producers should be able to sell directly to customers as long as they meet all requirements.
gdubs 12y ago
Change often comes incrementally, in extrutiatingly small steps.
bratsche 12y ago
http://www.texastribune.org/2015/02/19/legislation-would-let-tesla-sell-texas/ http://www.texastribune.org/2015/02/19/legislation-would-let... Texas is talking about doing a similar thing. The bill here would allow Tesla to open "as many as 12 stores in Texas".
wnevets 12y ago
because car dealerships make a lot of money
bko 12y ago
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good
andrewtbham 12y ago
because the dealership's concern is not Tesla, whom they consider a niche player. Their concern is their manufacturers GM, Toyota, Ford will set up their own stores and compete with and undercut them. The dealerships have poured a lot of resources into their dealerships over the years and it is an anti-trust issue for them to compete directly with the much more powerfule manufacturers.
- maratd 12y ago
  If they can't compete, that means they're not providing sufficient value. What value would I, as a consumer, enjoy by doing business with a local dealer rather than the manufacturer? I don't think the fear here is that they would "undercut them". I would do business directly with Ford, Toyota, etc. even if the price were the same. That's what they're afraid of.
  - pcurve 12y ago
    exactly. You don't see LG, Samsung, GE Appliances, Kenmore anxious to setup their own retail fronts because retail buying experience and cost structure of that model make financial sense for everybody involved. The current franchise model serves dealers well, but it really shortchanges customers, to the point that I'd even pay a bit more to buy my car from company directly.
  - ericd 12y ago
    My understanding is that these laws were put into place so that the manufacturers couldn't have it both ways - they couldn't enjoy the low startup-capital requirements of the franchise model, and then after using the franchisees to grow and scout out the best spots, cherrypick the most lucrative spots for manufacturer owned dealerships, driving out the independent dealerships by using their lower end-to-end costs. Because the franchisees are usually completely at the mercy of their chosen brand. The perversion of the law is that Tesla has never had franchisees, and they're still being blocked by the laws in many states, contrary to the original intention. I hate buying from dealers as much as anyone, but the law as I understand it makes some sense. I'm sure it varies from state to state and doesn't make sense in some.
josh2600 12y ago
>Why only 'zero-emissions" vehicles? What incentive does Elon Musk have to lobby for other companies? If he's doing the lobbying work, why wouldn't he structure the regulations to favor his organization?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

millzlane 12y ago
Why would anyone care what I buy with my own money and how I spend my free time if I don't harm others?
- damon_c 12y ago
  I'm concerned that your machine guns have the potential to harm others. The rest though, by all means...
  - randomdata 12y ago
    Maybe we could create a law that makes harming others with machine guns illegal...
    - damon_c 12y ago
      So obvious right? Well, we already have laws that make the possession of heroin illegal. They are broken all the time. With regards to the original point about silly laws that prevent us from spending our money and free time in ways that don't harm others, if person A is walking down the street and person B illegally uses heroin on the same street, person A is not likely to be harmed. You can't really say the same about person B and his/her machine gun.
      - cgriswald 12y ago
        You have established that person B is not going to follow the law in any case. So if there is a law in place preventing person B from possessing a machine gun, person B is still going to acquire a machine gun and use it illegally and person A is still harmed. You haven't solved the problem by moving the solution further up the chain, but you have prevented responsible, law-abiding folks from acquiring a machine gun. Laws against possession of heroin and laws against possession of fire arms work the same way with a lot of the same externalities. So it is odd that you would point to the failure of one to advocate for the other.
        zanny 12y ago
        I'm always in favor of the first amendment, but this is one context where outlawing the firearms does make a difference. There is a significant lower penetration of firearms in Europe period since almost every European country bans possession. That does not mean that someone who really wants a machine gun cannot get one - but that it takes a lot more effort to get one. Effort that many deranged and unstable people are not willing or able to dedicate the effort to see to fruition. Even in the age of anonymous online exchanges gun import rates are puny compared to firearm availability in the US. I think it is sound psychology to believe if you make it really hard to get something that an irrational actor will be less likely to pursue destructive behavior. The difference between firearms and drugs is that drug users are recurrent customers and can form an underground economy, the sociopath with a machine gun is often a one time shopper. Seems more economics than anything else as to why it is more infeasible to maintain a firearms black market at scale comparable to the drug market, regardless of ethics.
        minot 12y ago
        > I'm always in favor of the first amendment, but this is one context where outlawing the firearms does make a difference. There is a significant lower penetration of firearms in Europe period since almost every European country bans possession. Did you mean second amendment? Or do you mean that the pro-gun lobby does not have a right to free speech? If it didn't have implications beyond gun control, I might even support it. It is really sad that the only people in the pro-gun lobby are industry shills. Anybody who deviates ever so slightly from the official message gets effectively shut down by the lobby as not being one of them.
  - ctdonath 12y ago
    I'm concerned that too often "potential to harm" is prioritized over with "actual harm is extremely rare, much less so than many things you're not worried about" and "sometimes harm is required to stop someone from causing more harm".
    - jbooth 12y ago
      I'm pro gun rights, but if I could, I'd specifically outlaw sales of guns to anybody who's buying it based on a fantasy of taking out an active shooter.
      - Frondo 12y ago
        I like that. I also like the idea of requiring gun owners to buy liability insurance, in the event their gun is used to shoot or kill someone, or damage property; especially in the case of all these "accidental" shootings (which, really, are negligence on the part of the weapon owner).
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
- fma 12y ago
  Because that harms the established companies who donate money to the politicians.
rplnt 12y ago
I think you misunderstood the meaning of the sentence in this context. Not zero limitations of sale, but zero limitations on direct to consumer sales. I.e. there are limits, but you are not forced to go through middleman just because. So even drugs or guns producers should be able to sell directly to customers as long as they meet all requirements.

gdubs 12y ago

Change often comes incrementally, in extrutiatingly small steps.

bratsche 12y ago

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/02/19/legislation-would-let-tesla-sell-texas/ http://www.texastribune.org/2015/02/19/legislation-would-let... Texas is talking about doing a similar thing. The bill here would allow Tesla to open "as many as 12 stores in Texas".

wnevets 12y ago

because car dealerships make a lot of money

bko 12y ago

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good

andrewtbham 12y ago

because the dealership's concern is not Tesla, whom they consider a niche player. Their concern is their manufacturers GM, Toyota, Ford will set up their own stores and compete with and undercut them. The dealerships have poured a lot of resources into their dealerships over the years and it is an anti-trust issue for them to compete directly with the much more powerfule manufacturers.

maratd 12y ago
If they can't compete, that means they're not providing sufficient value. What value would I, as a consumer, enjoy by doing business with a local dealer rather than the manufacturer? I don't think the fear here is that they would "undercut them". I would do business directly with Ford, Toyota, etc. even if the price were the same. That's what they're afraid of.
- pcurve 12y ago
  exactly. You don't see LG, Samsung, GE Appliances, Kenmore anxious to setup their own retail fronts because retail buying experience and cost structure of that model make financial sense for everybody involved. The current franchise model serves dealers well, but it really shortchanges customers, to the point that I'd even pay a bit more to buy my car from company directly.
- ericd 12y ago
  My understanding is that these laws were put into place so that the manufacturers couldn't have it both ways - they couldn't enjoy the low startup-capital requirements of the franchise model, and then after using the franchisees to grow and scout out the best spots, cherrypick the most lucrative spots for manufacturer owned dealerships, driving out the independent dealerships by using their lower end-to-end costs. Because the franchisees are usually completely at the mercy of their chosen brand. The perversion of the law is that Tesla has never had franchisees, and they're still being blocked by the laws in many states, contrary to the original intention. I hate buying from dealers as much as anyone, but the law as I understand it makes some sense. I'm sure it varies from state to state and doesn't make sense in some.

josh2600 12y ago

>Why only 'zero-emissions" vehicles? What incentive does Elon Musk have to lobby for other companies? If he's doing the lobbying work, why wouldn't he structure the regulations to favor his organization?