Slashdot Mirror
How Car Dealership Lobbyists Successfully Banned Tesla Motors From Texas
Funksaw writes "In a political op-ed on his blog, long time Slashdot reader and contributor Brian Boyko (the guy who did that animated Windows 8 video) — now a candidate for state representative — explains how lobbyists from car dealerships successfully banned Tesla Motors from selling cars in Texas. From the article: 'Tesla Motors doesn't just present a case study of why a lack of campaign finance reform blocks meaningful reform on the issues that Democrats care about, like climate change and health care. A lack of campaign finance reform blocks reforms on both the Left and the Right. Here's the big elephant in the room I'd like to point out to all the "elephants" in the room: With a Republican-controlled legislature, a Republican executive, and many conservatives in our judiciary, why the hell don't we have free markets in Texas? Isn't it the very core of economic-conservative theory that the invisible hand of the free market determines who gets what resources? Doesn't the free market have the ability to direct resources to where they can most efficiently be used? I'm not saying the conservatives are right in these assumptions; but I am saying that our broken campaign finance system makes a mockery of them.'"
They don't want a Free Market, they want a Free For Them Market, screw everyone else.
Also, with how I saw Red McCombs screwing around San Antonio while I lived in Texas, it doesn't surprise me one bit.
Texas doesn't want electric cars because it goes against their oil industry, which pretty much runs the state.
Yep. Anyone can describe a utopian economic system ("Under communism, everyone will work together for the common good!" "Under capitalism, competition and individual choice will lead to the greatest possible efficiency!") but in the real world, they all tend toward cronyism and corruption. Every single time.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Ever see the shirt with the outline of an elephant humping the outline of a donkey? Republicans have NO desire for free market. They push corporatism. Demoncrats have NO desire for free market. They push socialism.
Simple, apt explanation. Are you stuck in primary school, Funksaw? This is sort of common-knowledge these days.
some car companies lobby for money from the government to stay afloat, when they should go bankrupt. they're given the money.
another car company lobbies the government for some cash to get off the ground, pointing out how competitors have no chance against established car companies that are propped up by the federal government. they're given the money.
the established car companies' networks lobby in Texas ....etc etc etc.
it's crony capitalism all the way down.
Republicans don't want free-market.
Democrats don't want free-market.
They both want different lobbys to pay them (in campaign donations) for the "privilege" of not being encumbered by regulations of the other party.
Libertarians (both big "L" and little "l") generally want free-markets.
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
This is exactly how neoconservatives view the free market. Politicians and laws are part of the market and fair game. A company will always strive to maximize profits, if buying laws and legislators maximizes profits so be it.
This is the free market as neoconservatives see it, whoever has the most capital wins.
Some backwards people just want to make a lot of noise and blow smoke.
Signature intentionally left blank.
The free market here is in politicians, not autos.
I think it's cute that the synopsis above thinks Texas has a lot of conservatives in its government. Republicans != conservatives, at least not universially.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Texas is trying to convince Space-X to build a launch facility near Brownsville, TX. Someone may have forgotten that Elon Musk runs both Space-X and Tesla.
Exactly. Since when have Republicans actually championed free markets (as opposed to doing them lip service)? Maybe you're thinking of Libertarians.
I have to say, I am very sad by this , especially after watching the video, i feel like buying a tesla car just to encourage tesla and make the dealerships feel like they longer are current, they are actually now obsolete. Why would i pay 5k more for a car just because they went through your hands instead of direct from the manufacturer.
It's hard for me to have sympathy for tesla when every article claims that X state or Y state is ZOMG BANNING TESLA. No one is banning Tesla. It's intellectually dishonest. Tesla is whining that they don't like the rules, so they're just going to take their ball and go home. Look. It's the law. Want to sell cars? Get dealerships. Don't like the law? Lobby to change it. I would be a lot more interested in what Tesla and their supporters have to say if they would just present the facts honestly. It strikes me as a lot of whining and crying "unfair," when changing the law specifically for Tesla strikes me as less fair (however inevitable and necessary for that to happen *in due time*).
Where is the allowed acceptance of corporate campaign contributions covered in there? I don't see it. Notice my wording, running for and holding office is a choice, it's completely voluntary. By choosing to run for and, potentially, hold office you must agree to the rules. If those rules say you cannot accept compensation from for-profit corporations (as opposed to non-profit political organizations), then you cannot. Constitution not violated.
Here's what the Tesla site says:
http://www.teslamotors.com/advocacy_texas
Here's the Dallas Observer's discussion:
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/09/tesla_crushed_by_car_dealer_lo.php
And Auto News:
http://www.autonews.com/article/20130909/RETAIL07/130909878/how-texas-dealers-slammed-the-door-on-tesla
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
If this result is confusing please see the following links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice
"Public choice or public choice theory has been described as "the use of economic tools to deal with traditional problems of political science".[1] Its content includes the study of political behavior.[2] In political science, it is the subset of positive political theory that models voters, politicians, and bureaucrats as mainly self-interested"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
"Regulatory capture occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for firms to produce negative externalities. "
Republicans aren't free market libertarians, they are corporatists. Corporatists go complaining to the government when their long standing business model is challenged. Look throughout US history and you'll see examples going all the way back to the decline of the railroad empires.
It wasn't a new law that kept Tesla out of Texas. The law that car makers couldn't sell direct to consumers in the state has been there for years. Tesla can sell all the cars he wants in Texas. He just has to get someone to open dealerships just like GM, Ford, Toyota and all the others.
They're not saying that Tesla can't sell their cars in Texas. They're saying that Tesla can't deal them without using a third party dealership.
Its one of the old monopoly laws. Another one would be movie theaters. They used to be owned almost entirely by movie studios. That is, universal, etc would literally own the theater. They broke up most of those relationships and now you have to have separate corporations for many of these things.
Tesla could probably sell their cars just fine if they contracted with the local dealerships. Why they don't... I do not know.
Regardless, I agree that companies should be able to sell their products directly. After all, doesn't Apple have Apple stores that sell apple laptops directly? And then there are all the direct internet retailers. I can buy a computer direct from dell or a pair of socks direct from the gap. And the gap "makes" those socks. They're "gap" socks.
So I agree, the law is dumb. But it is actually very easy to get around it by just dealing with the dealerships instead of setting up your own.
AGAIN... I agree... it s dumb. But its manageable.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I read the laws tesla is lobbying for on their website, it's a rather specific exemption from the dealership law for basically them:
"a manufacturer of only all electric-powered or all battery-powered motor vehicles, or a distributor of only all electric-powered or all battery-powered motor vehicles, that (i) owned and operated a new motor vehicle dealership in the United States on or before March 1, 2013, and (ii) has never sold its line make in the United States through an independent franchised new motor vehicle dealership, may own or operate a dealer or dealership, or act in the capacity of a dealer, at any location within the state and may obtain a dealer general distinguishing number under Section 503.029 of the Transportation Code."
"let's write ourselves an exemption, but slam the door on anyone coming after us"
Tesla is not banned from Texas, they are banned from having dealerships. I just test drove (and will probably buy) the Tesla sedan last Friday here through the Tesla showroom at the Domain in Austin. I now have to simply go online and order one, and it will be delivered right here to Austin, Texas. In addition Tesla has an agreement with a local repair shop for any servicing, and they are building a charging infrastructure here in the state. So you can't say they've been banned, only that they have been prevented from having a tradition all in one place solution.
And I find it so amazingly ironic that all of the Republicans in this state who pontificate about the free market and demonize regulation would fight to keep the dealership system. It is exactly the kind of regulation they usually abhor, and prevents the capitalist system from working. The hypocrisy is unfortunately sadly predictable for those on the right in Texas. This is the same group that has passed a voter ID law to suppress the voting rights of the disadvantaged, even though in the last ten years there have only been 4 cases of voting fraud that could have been stopped with the ID law.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
This isn't a Republican vs Democrat thing, but it _is_ very political. Planet Money had an explanation of the economics of car dealerships and how dealerships and politicians prevent sales directly to consumers.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/19/172402376/why-buying-a-car-never-changes
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
One should be able to petition his government without having to first fill their coffers; to that same end, one should not be able to purchase a greater amount of influence than any other American has.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
So he spends a good deal of time talking about how contributions are perverting the process and finishes his post with ....
And if you can spare it, kick in some money to my campaign. Lord knows that after this post, Iâ(TM)m not getting any money from the Texas Automobile Dealers Association.
I was wondering the other day how free markets can exist with MAP pricing. It's pretty obvious that the powers are only interested in free markets when it benefits them.
All of that regulation is for sale. The more power the govt has, the more it will be up on the auction block to the highest bidder. A more powerful govt is the last thing anyone should want.
I have come to believe that "the invisible hand of the free market" is an euphemism for "MY invisible hand ON the free market"
Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds. - wonkey_monkey
Laws go to the highest bidder. What could be more free market?
Want a 100k car? You can drive 2 hours to Oklahoma.
Want good education for your kids in the inner city? Sorry, no can do, as shitty teachers can't be fired and the voucher system was killed by Democrats, using the campaign contributions from the teachers' union.
But why don't we focus instead on minor inconveniences for millionaires, instead of real issues.
The invisible hand of the market determines who gets what resource by slipping fat checks into the right persons pockets.
Then everthing is up for grabs.
And since corporations have more money than you do, they'll grab it all.
Exactly the same thing can be said about Democrats. Don't play partisan politics. They are both the same.
I want to be a corrupt crony, you insensitive clod!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I call that the invisible hand job.
"Fair markets" is not a static situation, it is a dynamic one. Is does not mean everything is fair to everyone at all times - it means that government should not be the ones deciding what is fair and for who. Given *time*, these things work themselves out. That doesn't mean there won't be winners and losers - just that in the end, things will find their own level.
The thing with Tesla in Texas is just such a thing. Is it a mistake for the people of Texas to ban Tesla cars? Maybe. Maybe not. The only thing *I* know for sure is that either way, it will work out. If Tesla gets big in other states, Texas will follow as public pressure will push the politicians. If Tesla turns out to be just another green boondoggle, then Texas will be spared that.
Anyone can make themselves look clever by only pointing out the flaws in *any* philosophy. They depend on the public to not notice when their *solutions* to these problems actually make it worse. And whatever you can say about the inequalities of the past - the MACRO result of government intervention is universally bad. And macro doesn't mean the immediate result - it means fifty to one hundred years later - have the people you purported to help really better off? That is why history is the enemy of the liberal; and why they are always trying to redefine it to fit their current political needs.
The next time your child is having major surgery, feel free to go full liberal and burst into the operating room and cry out that the surgeon is incompetent because the kid now has an open wound and there's blood everywhere. The concept is the same for any dynamic process. You can say anything is failing if you cherry pick what you choose to highlight.
All the more reason to call them out on it.
I don't see much there for corporations, only for the people.
The issue is that Republicans are liars and at the end of the day are all just homophobic Democrats. Bush was not a conservative, not by any real economic measure, but that is Rove and Ailes fault. Of course when you look at the war-agitprop and unapologetic positions of Democrat leadership then you sson realize that democrats are just hedonist war-mongers. Their common fault is that they all believe that their party can fix what the other party has broken. I always refer to politics with the same analogy: It is just like professional wrestling. When the cameras are on and the stage is set they are bitter enemies, smashing each with rhetorical chairs and over-the-top storylines. When the lights are turned down and the crowd goes home, they are all backstage drinking beers and swapping wives. In the end its because the biggest corporatist-whores are the media themselves, the media that has never known a war that it at first didnt love and cheer-lead for, the media that always implicilty calls for legislative action, the same media that can get caught red-handed in a lie but never apologize or be punished. #CNNMakesYouDumb
The first amendment doesn't specify HOW one may petition the government for redress of grievances or guarantee equal access to that right - it just prohibits Congress from making laws abridging that right (which, campaign finance reform does in the opinion of some).
Consider, if you ban all money from such redress efforts as you seem to suggest would be "fair". That might require each individual to meet with their representative in person as stamps, paper, and internet access cost money and only those with sufficient resources could afford those. Of course, that creates an interesting unfairness in itself, as only those that can afford to pay for transport to the representative's office (Washington DC in the case of the President) could practically petition their government.
Almost all speech requires money -- either in form of direct/like kind costs (cost of paper, envelopes, stamps, posters...), opportunity costs (forgone wages), or indirect costs (petitioner paying someone to mow their lawn because they are too busy petitioning their representative to do so themselves).
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
This is what the "free market" looks like, Texas-style.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The articles and posters (including blogs) are all making the point that its unfair that telsa was booted from texas because they will not let the car dealers sell their cars. But what you have to do is to sit down and think about this. Do you mean that by not selling thru the dealerships ( Which everyone says are evil and very difficult to deal with ) that your buying experience will be different? How so? Just because you do not use a dealership doesnt guarantee a quality experience. However, In a free market society (there is one right?) one should have the right to sell a product as they see fit. However, If Texas and other states do not want them sold there then bypass them completely. People will gladly go across state boarders to buy a quality / hot item. Texas and the others will just be forfieting their tax revenue for the product. Personally, I will probably never buy a eCar. I dont want the luxury of replacing very expensive batteries and running around looking for a charge. On the subject of charging (since I brought it up) How do you think these things get a charge? its called the coal industry. You know that industry that Barry is trying so hard to shut down. It really makes me laugh when people buy these eCars and think they are doing the "green thing" when actually they are just saying "Hey, Through some more coal in the burner will yah?". In closing, I would rather pay for a oil change than a battery change in a eCar. -- coffee412 at comcrap dot com
Nobody from Texas reads Slashdot.
Not sure why this is news. Had it taken so long to figure this out.
But Democrats don't sell themselves as wanting completely free and unregulated markets. That's not to say they are hypocrites about other things but in this case it is more about Republicans.
Who knew?
Seriously, if they do, it must be in some far-off country I have no experience of. This one here, not so much.
Keep going back -- look up Whiskey Rebellion.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
welcome to our political/economic reality.
you have two options.
Be paid up with the right people
or
Fail in a public forum (Texas in this case) as a result of not being paid up with the right people and hope for political pressure to get you through.
Tesla i feel has the option to go either way, but I applaud them taking the high road, pun intended, here.
The real problem only arises when you can't afford either option. In which case you just might be reaching for a larger market than you as a company can support.
Not saying it's the best system, or even sufficiently "good" to pass most tests for "ok". but it's been this way since the beginning.
Tesla v Edison
North v South
Ford v the automobile industry
blah blah blah
I might be alone in this, but if a law/decision is made that limits a person, group of people, company, or business model there needs to be safety or environmental reasons for it or IMO it is based on personal rhetoric or personal gain. Of course, in this world gone mad, finding someone to say that allowing direct to consumer marketing is killing children and polluting the gene pool is pretty easy. So who you are paying shifts... then what?
I can imagine someone arguing this is the free market working. Lobbying and representation is a product, and those with the most money are purchasing it.
School funding depends on the property value in the catchment, therefore the shitty inner city school is because they get fuck all money.
Shitty teachers can be fired. However, the definition of "shitty" does not include "You don't think my precious is a gifted individual!".
And the voucher system was merely another way to get people in government paid to pay other people in government and draw a salary for doing it.
Fix how schools are paid for and you won't NEED to have any form of voucher system.
It will come from the pockets of the well heeled, however, who will cry a furious storm.
This past weekend I walked by the Tesla store in Houston. I guess one of their employees got a dealer's license or something. I know two people with dealer's licenses, one owns a small dealership and the other sells a few cars a month from his front yard, so I guess it's not THAT big of a deal.
the invisible hand of the free market determines who gets what resources? Doesn't the free market have the ability to direct resources to where they can most efficiently be used? I'm not saying the conservatives are right in these assumptions; but I am saying that our broken campaign finance system makes a mockery of them.
Good. They deserve to be mocked.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Those who banned Tesla are not -- by definition -- corporatists, because Tesla Motors is a corporation.
Those who banned Tesla are simply idiots. Replacing them with corporatists would be a big step up.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
The free market means the rich are free to do whatever the fuck they want to, and everyone else is free to shut the fuck up about it.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's the other way around.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
No franchisee has given money to Telsa to start selling their cars, so there's no one who needs those protections.
You forgot about the domino theory. The reason the dealerships oppose this is that it simply opens the door to question their position. It's the same reason that pro-choice folks fight so hard against any laws that restrict abortion and pro-gun folks fight so hard against any laws that restrict gun-ownership. Maybe it even explains why Amazon used to fire all of it's employees in a state if they threated impose sales taxes on internet sales. The rationale often given is that if only one domino falls, then the others are at risk.
I've copied his last 2 sentences for you:
Don't play partisan politics. They are both the same.
Doesn't matter who it is this time. That does nothing.
OK, RTFA.
EXISTING laws proscribe direct sale to the consumers. Argue if you want about how those laws cam into existence, but they are in fact, the law and predate Tesla.
Tesla wanted the laws changed. So they were actually the ones lobbying for a special exemption.
Texas didn't ban Tesla cars, they didn't change the existing laws to accommodate Tesla's sales model. You can argue about that being smart or not, but Telas's cars are NOT banned.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
They don't want shops to ever close. In fact, if a shop is closed they'll break in.
Seriously, Republicans are all for market regulation -- of the ability to prevent people from organizing, or to insulate companies from some types of market pressures such as environmental impact laws, they want to be able to bedevil their competition with lawsuits but force their customers into binding arbitration.
You see, they believe in irregular tense constructions.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
Disclaimer: I'm Canadian, but I have been to texas once.
Ok, 1) Read TFA, 2) don't know much about selling cars (hate BUYING them enough).
Is it possible for Tesla to franchise out a small Tesla dealership in these states? ie, play by the rules? Perhaps only to the barest letter of the "rules"?
Are they not allowed to set a "no haggle price" model with the dealership? I'm not sure why not, since The Saturn Car company did that. They either allow for a few points for the dealership in a "dealership price" in texas, or they take a few points hit when selling in this model in texas. or both. It would then give them access to those markets.
It really does seem like they're playing chicken, or "ok, if I can't play my way, I'm taking my marbles and going home".
Perhaps they hope to change the system. I would love to see that sort of thing happen.
The title of this was "How Car Dealership Lobbyists Successfully Banned Tesla Motors From Texas". Yet no where in the summary, link or video didn't it exactly explain how. It hints at not being able to bypass the car dealership laws, but then one of the dealers says that Tesla was looking for an exception to the car dealership laws.
Well, which is it? Was a new law passed banning Tesla from selling directly, or were the no-direct-sell laws already in place and Tesla wanted them changed? Because those are two VERY different things.
Everyone on /. mod up my friend Daniel Dvorkin for his supremely insightful comments, which are without parallel for their display of intellectual merit. Daniel Dvorkin is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.
There is a difference between spending money to come see me and sending me a check.
Yeah, there's a difference. When a porn star comes to see me the wife objects but when she sends me a check it's all good.
Campaign finance 'reform' does nothing but put another middleman (read, useless brother-in-law) between the political party and the money. It's another method of laundering. Totally bogus. If goddamn people won't look past the propaganda of mass media spoon feeding, then they deserve what they vote for. Dumbasses need to wake up and look in the damn mirror before pointing their damn fingers.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
My wife who knew Alex Fraser and went to his wedding heard all about this situation. Since then not much has changed except Milo Minderbinder saw the light of day around the time of expo 86 and let the transit board build advanced public transit but only in the lower mainland, from which his organization(s) are profiting nicely to say the least. So far he has not approved any real rapid transit for his empire on Vancouver Island though as it would cut into car sales there to say the least.
So Texas is definitely not the only place where the politics of the car dominate things. I was offered an opportunity to run for the organization up in Northern British Columbia against the incumbent socialist MLA. I turned them down. However the individual who did accept the free ride into automotive politics, Al Passarell an NDP turn coat didn't live to make a difference. Though he could have and most likely would have. It is almost as if someone up there is pulling the strings in BC. The ghost of WAC Bennett is up in the clouds working a remote control and this is how the Sky Train really works it is not run by computer at all
Funny but in the many years since the Milo Minderbinder political organization magically disappeared from the landscape, in the background the same organization is still pulling the strings just under a more liberal banner!
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
those are not "Showrooms" the are "Gallerias". they are forbidden from discussing price or even ordering one from that location. you have to go online to place an order.
I've copied his last 2 sentences for you:
Don't play partisan politics. They are both the same.
Doesn't matter who it is this time. That does nothing.
But the Republicans tell everyone that they ARE pro free markets and do the opposite while one would expect such behavior from the Democratic party. See, one party is a bunch of hypocrites regarding the subject of Free Markets while the other makes no bones about ramming regulations down our throats. Get it?
Also, the posts started by attacking the Republicans specifically and THAT was addressed. It was the GGP who had to throw in the "But they do it too!" elementary school argument and accusing his parent of partisanship when that wasn't the case - because the subject was the Republicans.
Good grief, people!
Yeah, yeah, yeah, now someone is going to point out how the Dems are hypocrites in some other area ... yeah, got it. But we were talking about Free Markets.
This might help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
But you forget; corporations are people too! Why, you ask? Well, because they said so, and their voices are much louder than those of us "human" people.
Neither party wants a free market. The difference is one of those parties makes a lot of speeches about wanting a free market.
OK, RTFA.
EXISTING laws proscribe direct sale to the consumers. Argue if you want about how those laws cam into existence, but they are in fact, the law and predate Tesla.
Tesla wanted the laws changed. So they were actually the ones lobbying for a special exemption.
Texas didn't ban Tesla cars, they didn't change the existing laws to accommodate Tesla's sales model. You can argue about that being smart or not, but Telas's cars are NOT banned.
Don't let such trivial things like FACTS get in the way of a good political mud-slinging. Whether you're red, blue, or green (or any other color) you must blindly applaud anything done by your guy and boo the others.
Libertarians (along with Christians) are the useful idiots of the Republican party.
Did you know that, here, we can go to one of several websites and buy a new car from any manufacturer, usually with a significant discount over list, together with a mandatory manufacturer's warranty that has to be honoured by that manufacturer's service outlets?
The Health Service is creaking a bit though...
so from the title of the discussion, the blurb and the first, i dunno, 25 posts i was under the impression that the evil republicans came together to pass a law that bans them from selling cars. Down at post 100 or so, someone who's actually informed correctly states that there's a law where no manufacturer can own a dealership, which is something completely different. In fact some other poster states that they have a showroom and will ship directly to your area.
This is downright misleading in so many regards. I have no problem with the texas law. I have no problem with how tesla has to sell cars. This isn't something new, it's always been like this in texas.
The editors should be ashamed they didn't bother to do any homework on the subject.
Unfortunately, John Adams assumed the 'invisible hand' exists then wrote about all the things that destroy the invisible hand. So he created a proof that free markets exist in certain conditions. What capitalists forget is the foundation of the free market: It's multiple venders offering an identical product, not the opportunity to monetize everything. A single supplier selling something (such as legislation) does not make a free market. It's worse when the law, supposedly a public good, is restricted to wealthy consumers via lobbyists and court-rooms.
They do all the time. The problem here is Texas politics, not "republicans". Get a list of Texas law makers, regardless of affliation, and put a check mark next to the ones with interests in car dealerships. That will illustrate the problem very nicely. And you'll see plenty of democrats in the list, my friend.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
The first amendment doesn't specify HOW one may petition the government for redress of grievances or guarantee equal access to that right
The 14th Amendment specifies that all persons are to receive equal treatment under the law, and since the 14th applies universally, then there very much is a guarantee of equal access, which current campaign finance laws illegally prevent.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Except the free market libertarians vote conservative Republican enough to have nominated the the most conservative one they could find as they're presidential nominee back in 1988, and they're still a big fan of his.
So they're just extreme conservative Republicans with a different label and nothing else.
Here's what the Tesla site says: http://www.teslamotors.com/advocacy_texas
Here's the Dallas Observer's discussion: http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/09/tesla_crushed_by_car_dealer_lo.php
And Auto News: http://www.autonews.com/article/20130909/RETAIL07/130909878/how-texas-dealers-slammed-the-door-on-tesla
Could you put that into a car analogy for us?
...
( ducks and runs for cover )
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Republicans aren't free market libertarians, they are corporatists.
Yeah, corporatists. Like Mussolini & Franco.
"Isn't it the very core of economic-conservative theory that the invisible hand of the free market determines who gets what resources? "
No, no it is not. Ayn Rand lunacy is, but nothing actual rooted in reality. Hasn't worked in over 100 years.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I';m aware of it, but since it didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was written, I doubt it was intended to apply. It is clear that the Constitution's use of 'the People' meant actual human beings.
Auto makers must sell their cars through independent dealers. Tesla Motors is the one who has not been made to play by the rules. Musk is being allowed to do something other automakers are not.
So what you are saying is that this Democrat (who we all know favor strong consumer protection) wants to eliminate one of the oldest consumer protection laws on the books? If he had anything intelligent to say on the subject he would have proposed how to accomplish letting the manufacturer sell directly and provide the same protection to the consumer instead of lying by stating that the politicians acted to prevent Tesla from selling directly (as 47 other states also do, so perhaps it actually has some rational basis). Too many Democrats and Republicans alike are all about picking who wins and who loses, and not on reason, equality, or constitutionality; and this guy's true colors are showing in that regard. It sounds to me like he thinks politicians are for sale and he just wants in on the gravy train.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
They wanted to leave the USA and become their own country. Why would any one be surprised by this?
Yep. Anyone can describe a utopian economic system ("Under communism, everyone will work together for the common good!" "Under capitalism, competition and individual choice will lead to the greatest possible efficiency!") but in the real world, they all tend toward cronyism and corruption. Every single time.
1. There is no utopian economic system, but instead, bad, better, and best systems. Since humans aren't perfect and are prone to mistakes, so to are economic systems they design and plan. It is straw-man argument to act as if proponents of any system, including free market capitalism, claim their system is perfect. That's not to say each person wouldn't prefer one system over another or that their isn't a system that is most free and most efficient.
2. Given that it's natural that each individual tend toward selfish goals, likely due to the natural instinct all living creatures have to survive, a system that harnesses such selfish goals by pairing those who have compatible desires, such as someone who desires a given service at a given price and someone who desires to provide the given service at the given price, seems to be the best, most efficient system possible. That's how a system (which is actually no system at all) that is not planned is actually the best system of all.
3. If you contend that all systems tend toward cronyism, then the best system would concentrate the least economic power in government, as government has the ultimate power to coerce. Also, a system corrupted by cronyism should not be confused with free market capitalism and should not be considered the natural end of free market capitalism -- it's simply a system corrupted by cronyism. In a free society, such as in the US, the people must vote out those who support such corruption of freedom. Unfortunately, many on the left decry free markets as inherently corrupt. Rather than propose free market solutions or simply vote with their money, they favor greater influence from the biggest special interest of all, the government, which only makes our economic ills much, much worse.
To Republicans, a "free market" means a near-monopoly held by a few powerful companies.
For example Republicans wanted a free market in the cable industry, and where I live we went from having several providers to only Comcast in the span of a few short years.
They don't want a Free Market, they want a Free For Them Market, screw everyone else.
Also, with how I saw Red McCombs screwing around San Antonio while I lived in Texas, it doesn't surprise me one bit.
"Conservative or Free Market in Name Only"
One thing to remember when talking about Southern Conservatives is many of them were Democrats only decades ago - they're more Socially Conservative than anything else. Government handouts are frowned upon in group, but separately they all want their own special targeted assistance, call them tax breaks or subsidies or grants if you like, they're all the same, making someone else pay for their aid. And in this case it's a matter of harming a potential competitor, much like the Big 3 wanted when the Japanese were busy selling innovative little cars put together by highly efficient assembly methods.
Ooh, evil government! Liberals interfering with businesses! Such a lot of horse hockey.
Better competition should make you raise your game and improve on your product and services, but beg for government interference.
Liberals, Conservatives or Centrists can all be wonderful or rotten, just depends upon what their actual priorities are. Some are more of the other side of the aisle they'll even admit anyway.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Its a computer with a really nice set of wheels :-)
Greed is the root of all evil.
You obviously are not from Texas. When a small town in Texas has only one restaurant, it is a Dairy Queen, not a McDonalds.
With a Republican-controlled legislature, a Republican executive, and many conservatives in our judiciary, why the hell don't we have free markets in Texas? Isn't it the very core of economic-conservative theory that the invisible hand of the free market determines who gets what resources? Doesn't the free market have the ability to direct resources to where they can most efficiently be used?
Republicans claim to be in favor of free markets. For the most part they are interested in lining their own pockets even at the expense of free markets. Even most democrats claim to be in favor of regulated *mostly* free markets, but too are in the business of selling us out to corporations in exchange for personal gain.
Just because our current politicians make their living by undermining a free market, does not mean a free market is not a worthy goal. If Tesla (and all car companies) were able to sell cars without going through a middle man dealership, this would constitute a free-er market, and be better for consumers.
So far, nobody's mentioned in the discussion the following angle on the story:
OK. So dealerships don't like being cut out. And they don't like it. Of course not. They're small businesses. They're owned by families, not giant corporations, and those families are terrified that all the rest of the giant corporations will cut them out the way that Tesla does. Is it really so much better when Tesla Corp (or Elon Musk, for that matter) keeps all the profit instead of sharing a small percent with a local family?
I'm not a car dealer. Just thought maybe this was a point worth considering.
I sincerely dislike whoever voted you down. I would further extend contention 3 however, and say cronyism is human nature. Gamesmanship is an art practiced by many. No matter what system is I'm place corruption is going to happen.
At that point...no matter what syste...the gov is supposed to fix it.
Unfortunately governments placing high value on wealth is not unique to capitalism.
Um... I was just at the mall in Houston- heart of the oil industry, and there's a Tesla store there... maybe not a dealership, but they're getting some commercial exposure.
Though I am sure all this interference with the Free Hand of the Market (TM) is all due to the Gubmint.
Captcha: sarcasm (!)
What they can't do in the showroom is tell you how much the car costs (although who knows if they abide by this) or take your order. So no. They are not selling the cars in Texas, they are simply promoting them and then allowing the laws on interstate commerce to make room for the rest.
Bottles.
Well, some would say that a political entity being "more tactful/less blatant about achieving its end goal" is "more insidious"
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2712605&cid=39277125
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
What I don't get is that the bill that was written had it as a PENALTY. Thats what was voted on in congress. SCOTUS ruled that it is constitutional as a TAX yet I find it odd that congress didn't have to go back and vote on the bill with the clarity of it being a tax.
Perhaps a dumb question but: How is it that the Affordable Care Act is being implemented when the congress voted on it based on penalties but that was found to be unconstitutional....and congress didn't have to re-vote on the bill to be passed after the SCOTUS ruling that said it had to be a tax?? I've been wondering that now for some time.
Democrats are the ones that care about market "fairness", not Republicans. Vote for Dems in Texas and you'll get your Tesla and campaign finance reform to the extent that SCOTUS will let us.
If they were indeed corporatists, they would be be championing and empowering Tesla as one of the new generation of technology conglomerates that allows the US to out-compete its economic adversaries. It seems to be some small-town protectionism from representatives who fear accusations of "destroying Texan jobs", or worse *gasp* "allowing Californians to make money off of Texas" when elections come around.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
You don't seem to know what the invisible hand is. It a market correction. The US revolution was an action by the "invidible hand." The market was skewed (everyone was forced to pay taxes for services not received). So the market issued a correction. The invisible hand has been misused to justify all sorts of bad acts. Worse, the law has been used as a buffer/diversion of the invisible hand.
Learn to love Alaska
The problem here is Texas politics
No different than Illinois politics. Except, of course, that both of our previous Governors, one Democrat and one Republican, went to prison after office. The last Governor is still incarcerated.
But I know bar owners here in the capital city, you think selling cars is politically rough and dirty...
Free Martian Whores!
Yep, you just can't get around human nature.
Which is the idea behind severely limiting the power of those one elects over them. Most likely they will all turn out to be corrupt swine, sooner or later.
Best not to dwell on it.
Trust me when I tell you that a free market is not always a good thing.
Our Electricity costs come to mind. Ever since they were de-regulated and allowed to become "competitive" via free market,
electricity has never been higher.
Who wouldn't want to buy a damn car without the nightmare of going to the dealer and having to play that silly ass game. . .
Me: How much is the car ? ..
Them: What would you like your payments to be ?
Me: I am capable of math thanks, how much is the damn car ?
Them: What will it take to get you to buy one today ?
Me: You telling me the overall price would be a great start . . . . .
Them: Okay. The price is X !
Me: Great, I'm paying cash ! Let's do the paperwork !
Them: CASH ?! Oh we can't do this price cash, I need to go talk to my manager . .
Me: You have fun with that, I'm going to go cut my wrists now. . .
liberty - the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views
unbridled authority - from ANY external mortal source - (hint hint - libertarian does NOT = athiest) is to be not just ignored, but fought tooth and nail to the death
"live and let live" - if you can not understand that as the root of mortal liberty - then you will continue to make such deliberately ignorant statements about people you do NOT even attempt to understand
If you want to talk corporate person hood then what right did the dealerships have to block another dealership from operating? That's a big old court case just WAITING to happen.
And the dealers could have chosen to carry Tesla models too. So this leads me to believe there's another motive. Consider one of the biggest boosters of electric vehicles - it's President Obama. So it all boils down to hatred of the President not because he's a bad guy but because, and I'll piss some folks off here, but because he is black by the one drop rule.
I want to be a corrupt crony, you insensitive clod!
This is the internet, you're going to have to settle for being a corrupt brony.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Ninth Amendment renders all arguments of this sort invalid.
Disclosure: I'm not the grandparent AC, and I am FOR campaign finance reform. But that doesn't change the fact that you've made a terrible argument here.
Also, a system corrupted by cronyism should not be confused with free market capitalism and should not be considered the natural end of free market capitalism -- it's simply a system corrupted by cronyism.
Thank you for illustrating my point so neatly. Just as die-hard communists insist that real communism looks nothing like was practiced in the USSR, so do free-market fundamentalists insist that real capitalism looks nothing like what we have in the US ... both groups neatly ignoring the fact that in the real world, this is how their preferred system behaves. You can talk all you want about how it should work, or how you think it would work if certain conditions were met, but it doesn't make a damned bit of difference to how it actually works.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Well, roughly speaking, dealerships originated because car companies were limited in scope and the market fractured between states that were no where near as integrated as today.
You know how as a company becomes larger it becomes less agile? Dealerships was a way for car manufacturers to reduce their scope, transfer risk, etc... Same reason that companies like McDonalds franchised.
The car manufacturer didn't have to worry about individual dealerships being non-profitable, not being able to adjust to local demands, etc... They just sold the cars to them using interstate commerce to avoid most issues. However, as we developed better data manipulation, control schemes and such it became practical for them to have their own stores, which they started to do - at which point all the dealers ran to the government for laws protecting them. Remember, they went to their local state governments, where the car companies had no real presence yet.
I don't read AC A human right
Just buy the car in another state, hell we have Casinos inside the Oklahoma and Louisiana Borders. If somebody wants a Tesla bad enough, they'll find a way to get one and bring it to Texas. The Tax office will accept their money just like anybody else.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Protecting dealerships is not consumer protection. In MA we had to fight for a Right to Repair law which the dealerships fought tooth and claw.. Protection of dealerships by Franchise Laws is not pro-consumer.
They do want a free market. Any lobbyist should be able to bid as much as they need to for the laws they want.
Oh.Did you mean the puppets?
Your proposal is broken (do we need the old "your proposal to eliminate spam will not work because" checklist?).
It's broken because for-profit corporations would give to political candidates through non-profit political organizations.
It's broken because "by choosing to run for and, potentially, hold office you must agree to the rules" is a horrible mistake: what if the rules say "you must be a old rich white straight protestant male"? If you claim the constitution does not apply "because rules", then why would it not apply to that rule?
It's broken because freedom of association is a fundamental freedom, and a corporation is merely an association of owners.
It's broken because "campaign contributions" are mosty just a proxy for "political ad buys", and freedom of political speech should not be limited to those who own the press or TV station, but allowed to those who wish time on those channels.
I could go on, but maybe you see my point? Anyhow, the political influence of car dealership owners in Texas isn't a problem with campaign contributions in the first place, it's both a good old boys network thing, and the simple fact that most owners of large dealership chains could personally run against most state congressmen and win, due to name recognition and in-place advertising relationships.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The Whiskey Rebellion wasn't about who got to make whiskey. Anyone could if they were willing to pay the tax. A better example would be the Opium Wars in which foreign businesses wanted special rights to sell opium in China, against local law, a trade not permitted to native Chinese.
I would like to point out the false dichotomy of the outcomes of any social/political/economic syetem as "perfect utopia" vs. "complete failure".
Even with it's flaws, the United States has been been a success story for capitalism. Yes there is corruption, etc, but compared to what came before (e.g. totalitarianism, fuedalism, etc), the US is like a utopia.
I don't know where this idea that the free market requires no maintenance (i.e. that it "regulates itself") came from. It's true that the free market regulates it's own prices for goods and services, but that doesn't mean that it is the solution to every problem a society faces. I've heard people claim that everyone would become murderers and thieves in a free market. I don't think any sensible persons definition of a free market includes removal of a justice system.
We can have a free market even if the government is in charge of preventing and punishing criminals and fraudsters. In fact it actually works better when people are able to make more informed choices due to removal of fraud and coercion.
"...in the same way every other manufacturer..."
Do you even understand how dealerships work?
Don't you mean TexASS. Not Austin, that is a better place.
...Boyko explains how lobbyists banned Tesla from selling cars in Texas. Granted, I didn't watch the video, but considering how light this "article" is on details, and how heavy it is on accusations, I find myself skeptical and only having more questions.
Sadly, and although Texas has some of the nicest people I have ever dealt with, the legal and political system in Texas is a notoriously backward and dim problem that other states simply can not even take seriously. It is as if someone left the asylum doors open and they joined the government of Texas, became judges or lawyers in Texas and then were bashed in the head hard. Nothing short of an escaped lunatic who has suffered a major brain injury could be part of making or even tolerating the governmental and legal system in Texas. A serious rebellion in that state is a reasonable notion.
It is clear that the Constitution's use of 'the People' meant actual human beings.
Or at least the human beings who were white men that owned property...
First of all, I love you, love you, love you.
Second of all, Democrats are basically rich people willing to do almost anything to keep it that way. Republicans are rich people willing to do almost anything to keep it that way.
Democrat: I want to have a nice life off of the public.
Republican: I don't want to not have a nice life off of the public.
If you ask me, they're both tools used against the public that are willing to see only one side of things.
Tell them they're not really true Scotsmen.
They aren't! They're not even wearing their proper kilts!
There are CON's (certificate of need) required for hospitals to keep competition down. The states won't allow gas to be sold too cheaply, it must be sold at least the wholesale price. Some states require the permission of existing movers to open a new moving company. You can't sell insurance across state lines without being registered in that state and abide by their minimums coverage like prenatal care even if you are a single man. Funny how a luxury car is getting everyone excited.
In the video in the article, Bill Wolters, president of the Texas Automotive Dealer Assoc claims "everyone wants an exception to the law" I'm thinking if it is true, that EVERYONE wants an exception, then perhaps there is something WRONG with the law?
Mr Wolters also claims that Tesla could do BETTER selling through a franchise dealer network. But shouldn't that be Tesla's decision? And if they COULD do better, wouldn't they actually do it?
Complete and utter BS. The only thing Tesla wants is a monopoly. Tesla isn't banned from selling cars in Texas; they can sell their cars in Texas through dealerships. Why don't they want to? Because doing so provides downward pressure on prices. When you have multiple dealerships, you can go to different dealerships and peg one against another and get the best price. Dealerships then pressure the manufacturer to sell them the car at a lower price so they can in turn get a higher profit off of the lower price. When the manufacturer owns all the dealerships, you lose all of your leverage -- every bit of it. You can't go to the dealership down the street and get a better price anymore, because Tesla owns that dealership as well. GM, Ford, etc. were banned from selling directly to the public way back when for a reason... because they were trying to drive up prices.
Step 0: Network to probe for weaknesses in the social contract and find other cronies to make deals with.
Step 1: Park your ass someplace important, so nothing can get done without going past you. Claim victimization should anyone actually try to move you along and play for pity mercilessly. There are plenty of people in world that feel better about themselves by helping you screw others. They view it idealistically as peacemaking.
Step 2: Demand payment from anyone that wants at whatever is important, especially if what they are trying to do would help you in some way. If they are willing to sell their souls get it done, it must be worth everything else they have as well.
Step 3: Use the acquired power to push anyone that refuses to play along to go through you anyway, or else. Prior suckers are good for this since they will be jealous of anyone that does not get caught to the trap. And, there are always more suckers.
Step 4: Send anyone that goes through you to one of the neighboring cronies as a next step, preferably after making a small amount of traction for a short amount of time.
Step 5: Promote anyone in the crony network that gets "pushed off the fire hydrant" since that crony must be good at both being a pain in the ass and drawing attention. Plus, they will be less likely to eat your lunch if they both busy and do not see you as as much of a competitive threat as the others.
Note: Feel free to crush anyone that tries to be a hero. People prefer the security of known misery to the insecurity of uncertain hope. And, remember, you are adding value to their sense of worth by making them work harder for what they attain. Hard work = more worthwhile!
American consumers do not want a free market either.
Progress is for ninnies
The difference is one of those parties makes a lot of speeches about wanting a free market.
Which party is that?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If this is what success looks like, I don't want any part of it. As a point of fact, you made so many false assumptions, that it invalidates your entire thesis.
One, for example, is the assumption that humans make choices based on selfieh desires. Yes, monsters do. But most humans do not.They rather make choices based on all kinds of reasons, some of them selfieh, most of them not selfish. How many parents do you know? Aah, but now you will redefine selfish to be self-and-childish. So how many beggars do you see? Would they do that if there was a high failure rate? Whoops, better redefine selfish to be self-and-child-and-social-guiltish.
But reason doesn't work that way, and your logic fails. Your model doesn't duplicate the real world, and thus it becomes a miserable model for most real people.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Rent seeking is among the most dangerous threats to a free society. These greedy bastards don't want the right to make money, they want the right to make money forever without that position being challenged.
Exactly the same thing can be said about Democrats. Don't play partisan politics. They are both the same.
He didn't say squat about the Democrats. You're the one playing petty two-party politics.
Saying the Republicans feature an Elephant gets a knee-jerk reaction around here which means someone has to talk about Donkeys. There's facts that stand on their own, and the Republicans backing corporate interests is a fact that will stand on it's own even if the Democrats back extra-terrestrial cow part farming (or any other irrelevant stance).
Rather naive aren't we? Free market? It's a club. You're in, or you're out.
No. Fuck you.
"Galleria" is the name of the mall that the store is in. That term doesn't apply "they", the Tesla stores,just that one store is in Galleria mall.
... make new dealerships just for Tesla. People can start a dealership, contract with Tesla, then sell it to Tesla.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The invisible hand of the free market better be holding a roll of visible cash.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I agree that protecting franchises is not pro consumer per se, but that was their original goal and result until the 1950's, the franchise laws of most states have gone too far in protecting the franchisees because legislatures fail to understand that the 20% of the total sales taxes they take in and 7% of the retail employment in their states are paid by consumers, not by the dealers. Disassembling the existing system by giving manufacturers the power to impose shrink-wrap terms and conditions on consumers is not a move in the right direction. Boyko either lied about the situation, or he doesn't understand it himself. Tesla spent more money in Texas trying to influence lawmakers than the car dealers association. Texas lawmakers failed to enact an exemption specifically for Tesla. I do not think a bill that cuts out an exemption (even from dubious laws) for one company is a good idea, but apparently this wannabe politician does.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Actually, your original point was that proponents of each system ignore, what you claim, is the inevitable result of each system -- cronyism. Again, my point to you is that cronyism is not the inevitable result of free market capitalism. Although, I do agree that free market capitalism, largely doesn't exist anywhere in the world. To the degree it does, all people under such systems have benefited more and have experienced less cronyism than those under other less free systems, such as communism. Nothing beats the power of government, which is the reason it must be carefully limited in free societies -- a lesson our founding fathers knew all too well and many have sadly now forgotten.
Just straight BS.
Aww isn't that cute. Still libertarian, and still stupid.
Laws get made because people think something is fucked up in one way of another and they're trying to fix something.
The Dem's think something's fucked up in one way, and the Republicans think something is fucked up in another way. And the shit system changes from there; for better or worse.
The neo-cons have been deluding you dumb shits since the 80s and you've just been eating it up just like the stupid fucking welfare mothers voting Republican.
You're nothing but a sucker, and the moderate stance you're taking is absolutely no different than the Republicans or Democrats.
In a libertarian system they end up being the defacto government and effectively use their intervention to stifle competition. It's feudalism once a generation has passed and social mobility based on merit would cease to happen. Have you got your patron lined up?
When the rich have nothing to stop them creating barriers to entry for those that threaten to take away their riches it's only human nature for them to protect the livelihood of themselves and their families. Unchecked and you end up with feudalism.
I really don't understand why so many Americans want to throw away what George Washington and others fought to give them. I suppose it's a good old American style confidence trick to hide such a thing under a name with "liberty" in it.
The US began as a collection of little failed Utopias - but it turns out that if you are not a perfect citizen you have a greater chance of getting burned as a witch in such a perfect society. It's only when the idea of Utopia was given up on and a drive to do the best for the people as possible instead of trying to go for a perfect society that things got better. What is there now, imperfect as it is, is better than any vision of a Utopia.
That was FEMA's view and is why they fucked things up so badly in New Orleans and prevented volunteers from coming in to help. IMHO that's why the disaster response was inferior to what poor third world countries have put together in such a situation.
Ignoring politics...
Some profit-oriented people bought up many, many bridges, which the railroads needed to cross. They then hiked the tolls to the sky.
Los Angeles had a vibrant streetcar system in the early 20th century. GM bought them all up, for disassembly. If you visit LA, note the large number of oddly-wide streets, and parks that cut across neighborhoods in long straight lines. That is their genesis.
BP bought up a ton of solar-energy patents. BP-Solar exists, but not in a profit-making mode. It's just PR, and the goal is to stifle innovation in the field.
Oh, there are so many other examples. AC vs. DC (Edison won), the first car being a (French) electric, and ... ah, forget it. Go read some books on the history of technology covering the past 200 years.
exactly, under capitalism man exploits man as equals, under communism man exploits main as totalitarian ruler, completely the other way around.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Republicans are quick to argue in favor of the 'Free Market' when it suits their purposes to do so, but they aren't really in favor of them. The Libertarians are the true free market purists, but they aren't allowed at the adults' table in the Republican Party. This is somewhat analogous to the situation with the Progressives and the Democratic Party, occasionally useful as allies on selected issues but easily ignored and pushed aside when not in step with the party majority.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I never made an assumption that humans make choices based on selfish desires. I suppose this could either be completely true or completely false depending on the details of how you define selfishness. Until you do, I don't even think it is a coherent statement.
Under capitalism, the rich exploits the poor.
Only legislation helps the poor, and in the American case, it does very little.
If he can't work out Windows 8, maybe he shouldn't be in office ...
The Second Amendment prevents the Federal (and, via the 14th and recent incorporation decisions, inferior governments) from infringing on the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. Is it your position that therefore the federal government must actually supply arms to all people so they can exercise that right equally?
Similarly, Congress can't pass a law that inhibits the "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". However, surely, you don't think the government is obligated to somehow "level the playing field" so everyone finds it equally easy to "assemble" - esp. by actually restricting those most able to do so (such as unemployed bums those involved in OWS) because others (such as people who have a job) don't have time to camp out for weeks in a park.
You are quite confused about the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is completely about restrictions on government, not about imposing restrictions on those governed (such restrictions mostly appear indirectly in Article I, Section 8).
The courts have established that any restrictions on what an individual spends on their campaigns would be unconstitutional, so that belies your claim about "everyone must spend equal amounts of money" or have "equal access".
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
I don't want freedom for everyone, I want freedom for ME!
Open up a single dealership, all shares owned by Tesla themselves. They don't even have to own a showroom, just a mail drop off point at a forwarding service should suffice. If that's what the system demands, make them see that it's flawed.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
So you're an equal to the president of GM, are you?
The guy is grinding an axe and attempting to mislead people
The car dealer laws in Texas might well suck... after-all in a free market economy any manufacturer should be able to sell any lawful product to any customer via any method he chooses... but these stupid laws are ALL the result of "early twentieth century progressives" of BOTH parties. These laws were intended to prevent vertical monopolies which once existed in many industries in the US. When movie studios owned theaters, people in a town could only see movies associated with the production studio that owned the local theater, and so on. It was decided that the public needed protection from big evil car companies selling directly to them, so the car selling laws were "reformed".... and we all know that "reform" is always really good, right? The big government progressives (of BOTH parties) grew the government and injected it into all areas of the economy to save the people from the oppressive monopolies with giant heaping piles of laws and regulations with no concern for all the negative consequences their "cures" were generating. Now, there are many people (in BOTH parties) who are happy with this level of government meddling (after all, local car dealers contribute to local rotary clubs, scouts, little league, etc AND, purely by accident of course, to the campaigns of local politicians). Replacing Democrats with Republicans or replacing Republicans with Democrats will not solve this... which is why the TEA party arrived on the scene.
The ONLY way to fix all this crap is to shrink the government and get it out of all the garbage it was never supposed to be involved in.
At this point, is you are not either a TEA partier (small govt, generally right-leaning) or a Libertarian (small govt, generally left-leaning) you are just part of the problem.
Those family run auto dealerships are among the wealthiest local businesses and they maintain favorable community relations by funding the local little league team, helping fund the 4th of July parade, contributing to local charities, helping fund local school activities, contributing to the rotary club, the local veteran's hall, etc.
A distant car manufacturer with no local footprint and no local cares will not be a similar entity in the area; and that's why these very out-dated anti-monopoly laws are still on the books all over the country (particularly in more-rural states). Before you guys in places like NYC get too arrogant about it, consider this: the more urban areas have their own versions of this sort of market manipulation -> why should anybody need to have a "medallion" and a special type of car in order to run a Taxi service????? Look all around you and you'll by surprised at how much of this regulatory garbage has accumulated. In every case, the politicians have figured out ways to extract money from the schemes and so they are not likely to go away no matter which party is in power. You have to reduce the size of government and get it out of various aspects of life and the economy if you want to restore free markets (something we do not currently have, but our forefathers had and left to us) and individual freedom (something we are gradually losing).
You've clearly never seen the California legislature in session...
If it's pro-gay, pro-drugs, pro-Indian-casinos, or pro-government-workers-unions then it gets a hearing and a vote (with NO consideration of the actual merits of the matter at hand) and if it's on the "wrong" side of any of these issues it gets NO consideration (again, without regard to the actual merits or the needs of any groups not tied to these four categories). This is how you get a state that is bleeding jobs and money and a legislature pushing laws to let kids decide which gender they are (and therefore which restroom/locker room/showers to use at school) and laws to ban bullets with lead in them (because... DUDE... lead is.. like... TOXIC) while police are ordered to let violent felons out of jail early... presumably to gun-down their next victims with lead-free "green" bullets...
So really it is not the system at all, just the people involved. So psychopaths, put them any where and they will corrupt everything they touch so that it favours them at everyone else's expense. So how much smoother will any possible system run, once psychopaths have been removed and kept out of positions, of control, governance and influence. So it is really cronyism and corruption or is it always just psychopathy.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
My apologies. I saw coherence between your post and the GP to your post, and took you to be one and the same. GP was positing that capitalism was useful because people base deecisions on selfish desires, and capitalism took advantage of our selfish desires and matched them together.
Your post continued that train of thought.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Market economic theory is based on the fundamental assumption that participants are rational actors interested in maximizing the personal utility of any exchanges. Since things like happiness obtained through altruism are not easily quantifiable and highly variable across the population, in practice they are generally ignored in most economic analyses. So the result is that most economic theories and models are predicated on selfish actors.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
You appear to misunderstand social dynamics. Those who desire power and the ability to exploit it will naturally do whatever it takes and exploit whatever loopholes may exist in the system to achieve those aims. They will seek out and recognize like-minded individuals and work together to achieve those aims.
This is the basis of cronyism and only a system with appropriate controls, such as fair general elections by an informed populace, can prevent it. Current corporate law does not prevent such actions leading to cronyism, and in fact has a number of exploitable loopholes which facilitate the concentration of power among a connected few.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Campaign finance limits benefit incumbents. Why? Incumbents already have access and power. Think people! There are car dealerships in every district in Texas. It's easy for those dealers to call their representatives and ask that the law be kept the same to keep tesla out.
Tesla, on the other hand, has a lot of work to do. They have to convince a majority of representatives, all of whom have dealers in their districts, that it is in the best interest of their incumbents to allow Tesla to sell cars in Texas.
So, clearly the best way to help Tesla is to limit it's ability to lobby representatives? That's not going to help Tesla.
The author wrongly presumes the Government to be outside of the market, controlling it and thereby making it non-free. That's an absurd view. Why is the Government treated specially by you? Of course it is part of the market. It has special abilities, but they are all up for sale, so there's your market.
If this Brian Boyko were a real geek, he wouldn't misuse the phrase "begs the question".
Government needs to be there and be strong enough to act as a referee to keep companies from cheating. Otherwise you will have situations where a winning company can do anything it wants to keep startups from forming and becoming successful. On the other hand, if the government is strong but morally weak, then itit can be used to create the same barriers to entry.
VERY nice.
Don't you mean a corrupt Kony?
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
liberty - the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views
So then you support the abolishment of private property?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
..if it favours the incumbent hegemony.
Better known as the plutocrat elite.
A.K.A. The Good Old Boys Network.
"...but in the real world, they all tend toward cronyism and corruption."
That's because of the existance of government. Crony capitalism is the phenonmenon of large corporations influencing the violent power of the state to maintain and improve their market position far beyond what they could accomplish in a free market. That's why the wealth disparity continues to increase with the size and power of government. In a truly free market (no government), things would actually work the way Austrian economists describe.
Though, I know most slashdotters don't believe it and will mod me down. Sigh.
Here's to another thirty years of suffering from wilfull ignorance...
New Hampshire is an exception, thanks to the efforts of my libertarian friend and State Representative, George Lambert, who pushed the bill amendment that made it possible for Tesla to sell directly to the public:
http://gas2.org/2013/07/01/tesla-wins-big-in-north-carolina-and-new-hampshire/
(He's running for governor now.)
Increasing the size of the legislature means Lobbyists have to spend more time lobbying to get Their privileges enacted/protected. Meanwhile, the cost of running for office goes down because of smaller constituency sizes, making Candidates less dependent upon money. While a larger legislature means Legislators have to talk to more Legislators to get things done, the smaller constituency sizes also means They have to talk to fewer Voters to understand Their needs better. I think Texas could easily hand a state House and Senate of 300 Members each instead of the 150 and 31 Members currently. But what do I know?
but it's electric political crap...
I think Tesla has a better image now than its initial days.
Why can't they allow Dealers to sell Tesla cars in Texas and open their own stores as well? Even if dealers don't want sell their cars they can always sell it through their own stores.
The law has nothing to do with tesla or political parties as much as the SD title wants you to believe otherwise.
basically there is a law that does not allow a manufacturer to sell cars in the state directly and it was in place before tesla came into play. It is a protection mechanism that promotes competition and protects the consumer. If you want to buy a chevy you can shop around different dealers to get the deal you want. If you buy a tesla you pay their price or you dont get one... period. You cant go to the next dealer and pit one against the other to get a better deal.
this is why its in place.... is it perfect? No, of course not... anytime the government gets involved something will get messed up.
Be wary of statements from activists... they are usually less honest than lawyers or politicians ;)
The problem with your approach is that you ignore the fact that these "like-minded individuals" will use the very "controls" you seek to "protect" the economy to actually exploit it. For those looking to maximize their "power and ability to exploit," government is the ultimate vehicle to achieve such goals. While cronyism may be an undesirable element, only government has the ability to codify it into law.
On the other hand, an individual can much more easily choose a different product to purchase, business to frequent, job to work at, or place to live than they can choose a new government to be ruled by. Not to mention, natural market forces discourage exploitation and collusion, as competitors can find opportunity to upset incumbents who provide an inferior and/or over-priced product.
Also, it is not a loophole that people organize and cooperate together to maximize their ability to further their desires. Unions do it, businesses do it, and every person in the world tries to do it. It's what motivates us all to work and live a prosperous life. That's just part of freedom. Having said that, no business or individual should misrepresent themselves or what they have to offer to the market. This is where government has a legitimate requirement to provide the legal framework for freedom.
As a side note, please pardon my excessive use of bold in my last post. I didn't properly close a bold tag.
they simply want the serfs to feel as if they have power.
The government is run by the rich, for the rich, and all you hear from each party is lies intended to get you to vote for them. This is not cynicism, this is reality.That is one of many reasons why they choose to take away any semblance of our rights, because the Bill of Rights has no one to enforce it. All three branches of the government in the USA are owned by the wealthy.
exactly, under capitalism man exploits man as equals, under communism man exploits main as totalitarian ruler, completely the other way around.
You do not know what communism is.
Why do you hate the poor so much? As if the poor can't help them selves?
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
A solution would be to allow manufacturer direct sales under certain volume. Once volume is exceeded manufacturer should find incentive to sell to dealerships. This way Tesla can grow demand, keep tab on quality and expand. Once they are established brand dealership's would provide better value to the consumer through free market competition.
Just when to switch to dealerships could be managed by progressive tax. More cars sold directly - higher the tax.
The whole point of libertarianism is that there is no right person with power to bribe in the first place.
Did you even read the article, the summary, or even a single post? Tesla is allowed to sell the same way every single other manufacturer is allowed to sell in Texas. Like with many industries, you have to sell through a licensed third party. You can't sell directly. Every state has laws requiring that be done in one or more industries. I paid attention in law class. We even had a question to list at least one industry in each state(aside: you'll get a passing grade if you just answer alcohol). The playing field is level. The same laws apply to everyone.
Tesla is demanding to compete unfairly. That is anti-free market. If they were lobbying for a level playing field then it would be a good thing. Instead, they're trying to use the government to grant them an unfair advantage. That is simply damned crooked, and many of the people here are either naive or just plain dishonest with their support of anti-free market concessions for companies that have political connections.
But Democrats don't sell themselves as wanting completely free and unregulated markets. That's not to say they are hypocrites about other things but in this case it is more about Republicans.
Uh, neither do republicans, except for a scant few like Ron/Rand Paul.
" under communism man exploits man as totalitarian ruler[s]" There I fixed it.
Yes, but it does not depend on every single decision to be rational to work. The more decisions that are rational, the more it works.
The idea that the market should be controlled, is based on the idea that a small group of elected officials can be smart enough to control something as complex as a market.
I don't think either assumption works perfectly, however I think free markets work a hell of a lot better than government control. I think governments can effectively control small subsections of markets, but this is expensive and difficult. Sometimes this is in everyone's best interest, but free markets are the best default option, until a compelling case can be made for government control.
The word selfish has a lot of connotations. It can refer to people who are willing to exploit others for their own gain, but it can also refer to people who are motivated help others because it makes themselves feel good.
Free markets working are not predicated on only this 1st sense of the word selfish. Even when people donate to charity, but they do so in a way that maximizes the effect their money has on the goals they are trying to accomplish, this is a free market at work.
As I said, free markets don;t work at perfect efficiency. Things like rationality, and better informed people affect the efficiency of a free market, but under most circumstances it works better than if prices were controlled by a government. Just try to imagine a world where politicians were deciding the prices of everything from potato chips to computer chips. It would be a disaster.
Perhaps they can sell them at Love Field, but only if they are driving within the state. Does that help?
Yes, but it does not depend on every single decision to be rational to work. The more decisions that are rational, the more it works.
There lies the problem: irrational decisions tend to outnumber and outweigh rational ones even in the freest of markets. As George Carlin once said: imagine the average person, and consider that half the people are dumber than that!
The idea that the market should be controlled, is based on the idea that a small group of elected officials can be smart enough to control something as complex as a market.
No, the idea is that a small group of elites should be making the decisions. Elites by nature are more capable than the masses at making decisions.
The problem is not in letting a small group make decisions. The problem is having democracy decide which small group gets to make those decisions.
But it should be noted that this isn't what's happening. It's not the elected officials who make decisions about the economy. The elected officials hire or appoint other people to do that. For example, the US Federal Reserve is not run by elected politicians directly, but by appointed Board of Governors.
Because they are lying fucking hypocrites and the only people who don't know that are on the left side of the bell curve. Sadly we all get what those idiots deserve.
I think the people buying Tesla vehicles can just go outside the TX border, buy their car and bring it back for registration.
On one hand, you could say that the auto dealer lobby succeeded in preventing tesla from selling their cars directly in Texas;
On the other, you could say that tesla refuses to sell their cars through the dealer networks already in place.
There's the argument about free markets, but if tesla did what every other car manufacturer does and declares a list price and suggested sticker price, and let dealers compete for customers based on either price (by selling for less than sticker, or throwing in accessories, or service) they're not willing to allow a free market to function, with one uniform price in place through out the country...
Just to take the contrarian view...
The reality is that the left is just as guilty of crony capitalism as the right, turning this into a left/right issue is EXACTLY how NOT to SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.
Murphy was an optimist
I think you need to travel abroad - and you'll discover that we have it pretty darn good here.
Murphy was an optimist
BS. Democrats sell themselves as being the benevolent protectors of the little guy, and then they get into power and screw the little guy, all the while smiling and telling them how much they care about them.
Republicans don't sell themselves as wanting "completely free and unregulated markets" either. They write just as many stupid regulations as anybody else.
Murphy was an optimist
Corporate personhood goes back to English common law. So corporations could be taken to court.
The recent decision was about corporate persons having first amendment rights.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The 'personhood' of common law was well understood to be sharply limited and not to include natural rights.
In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it's the other way around.
I'm sorry but the 19th and 20th centuries are rife with counterexamples, from the robber barons of the Gilded Age, the Wall Street leveraging that caused the crash of 1929 and the Great Depression, and the US Savings and Loans scandals of the 80s where significant or massive economic damage is perpetrated, requiring decades for recovery. And that's just in the US. The mortgage crisis of 2008 is only the latest example. Even if it is true that a majority of power actors seek to protect the economy, there are significant examples that even a minority of colluding power actors who control a critical segment of the economy can be willing to inflict horrific damage if they can also enrich themselves sufficiently in the process.
That is only true if the proper regulatory environment exists, enforced by that government you want to reduce. Otherwise constructs like company towns can be used to eliminate everyone of the freedoms that you espouse.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Certainly they were corporations at the time. They had the right to speak and petition the government for redress of grievances.
I don't know how a corporate person could 'assemble' or 'exercise religion'. That was left to the people that owned parts of the corporation.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
There were corporations (very few) but I see no evidence that they had any sort of personhood other than in contract law and in court.
So the Texas auto dealers bought a law keeping Tesla out of Texas, for about the price of 4 Teslas?? Are we ashamed of the lack of campaign finance regulations, or how cheap it is to buy votes?
'm sorry but the 19th and 20th centuries are rife with counterexamples . . .
Those aren't counter-examples illustrating failures of the free market system, but instead examples of unnecessary involvement of government, resulting in undesirable outcomes, you and others on the left are quick to blame on free market capitalism. Again, free market capitalism has largely not been fully implemented as its proponents would prescribe, but to the degree it has, all have benefited. Another thing you seem to ignore that I'll reiterate -- proponents of free market capitalism don't claim their system is perfect and will lead to a perfect utopia, free from human mistake. That's an impossible to realize extreme imposed on them by those on the left and other opponents of the free market system -- a classic straw-man argument. What free market capitalist proponents do claim is that it's the best system available.
Many of the so-called "robber barons" you and those on the left often cite used the very government you claim needs greater and greater power over our economy to eliminate competition and unfairly advantage certain businesses with favor in the government.
Regarding the Great Depression, it is natural for the economy to expand and contract. Although, what's not natural is for government, who controls the money supply, to not properly react to such normal fluctuations of the economy. Had the government properly maintained the necessary level of currency through the contraction of 1929, it would have been a relative non-event.
Both the Savings and Loan crisis and the Sub-Prime crisis are easily attributable to government regulation, meddling, and direct action in the mortgage market. The inevitable results of such government intervention simply played out in the market. Not only has the modern mortgage market not been a "free market," it has been a wholly government planned and regulated market since its inception during the New Deal.
That is only true if the proper regulatory environment exists, enforced by that government you want to reduce.
As mentioned before, government has a legitimate regulatory role in prosecuting fraud. Aside from that, all are free to choose their fate in a free market. Free market proponents simply want to reduce government to this basic and necessary role, not eliminate it completely.
Otherwise constructs like company towns [wikipedia.org] can be used to eliminate everyone of the freedoms that you espouse.
Company towns only exist because people live in them. Unless the people are being held captive (which is illegal), again, they are free to move somewhere else.
. . . there are significant examples that even a minority of colluding power actors who control a critical segment of the economy can be willing to inflict horrific damage . . .
The problem with your claim is that in a truly free market, only those willing to freely risk their capital can be affected by such bad actors. The examples you cite were only possible with the very government you demand greater influence from. Rather than rely on government, who are easy targets for those looking to exploit the masses and who have the power to coerce the governed, it's much better to rely on the collective wisdom of free individuals acting of their own free will in a free market. It's naive and ignorant of history to think the bad actors are limited to the private sector. The public sector is the only sector where bad actors can actually force their selfish will on the people. In the private sector, where a free market exists, only those providing in-demand goods and services are rewarded. No one is forcing anyone else to do anything. Again, only government has that power. There's simply no escaping these simple and timeless truths.
Classic libertarianism asks "how can we do that with a little government as possible". How can we have the set of communal services we want with as little government oversight, as little taxation, as little public ownership as possible and still make it work. How can we ensure free and fair markets with little fraud, but do it with the minimum government presence? Of the many ways we could provide public safety nets and ensure access to health care, which requires the least government participation?
Classic libertarianism may indeed ask all this, but they seem to have trouble coming up with any answers. That is, any answers other than the same old rigid anti-government spew you claim to disavow. We know the questions, libertarians - classic or otherwise - aren't the only ones asking them, but in the absence of concrete and specific sensible answers, well... You're all still just "those crazy libertarians" to me.
How the heck is there a reasonable politician in Texas?! I mean I would vote for this guy and I am from Canada! Not to mention he appears to be literate:
"So because Tesla doesn’t go through a completely unnecessary middleman who turns the pleasant experience of buying a car into something resembling haggling for a donkey in Marrakesh, they can’t sell their cars in Texas."
OK. Having bought a new car myself years ago, "haggling for a donkey in Marrakesh" made me really laugh at work. I remember at the time thinking, this is so weird, how is it this is the only thing we "haggle" over, what an outdated system, I wonder why that is? (this is Canada)
Anyway nice piece, and I wish him luck politically. Jokes aside, I travel down to Dallas every other year to BGGCON and it is full of reasonable Texans (who still sound a bit funny), so I know for a fact that they are not all nuts. I also am long time friends with a girl from the big state, and she seems reasonable enough. It does seem they could use some reasonable political representation for a change.
That said we currently have our own nutbars in power in places around Canada as well as out dated laws and corporate interests directing corrupt politicians... As the churchies might say "Judge not, lest... blah blah blah...
http://www.dailytech.com/Tesla+Motors+Successfully+Fights+Off+Auto+Dealership+Assault+in+North+Carolina/article31854.htm
"A North Carolina House committee denied a bill that tried to stop Tesla from selling directly to consumers
Tesla Motors landed a major win in North Carolina this week when the state threw out a bill that attempted to block the automaker from selling its vehicles directly to consumers. "
The 14th Amendment specifies that all persons are to receive equal treatment under the law, and since the 14th applies universally, then there very much is a guarantee of equal access, which current campaign finance laws illegally prevent.
Everyone is treated the same under the law. Those the government likes best get the most access. Everyone is free to act in a manner to get more favorable treatment, and thus it's "fair" even if impractical if step 1 of getting access is making $10,000,000,000.
Learn to love Alaska
Sometimes I hate it when you're right, you know that?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Said another way, everyone is free to petition the government, but nothing requires the government to listen, so they won't, unless you make it worth their while to listen. Again, not breaking the letter of the Constitution, but certainly the spirit.
Learn to love Alaska
Again, not breaking the letter of the Constitution, but certainly the spirit.
IMO, the spirit of law is the important part.
Said another way, everyone is free to petition the government, but nothing requires the government to listen, so they won't, unless you make it worth their while to listen.
OK, so the I guess the question becomes, how do we common folk make it worth their while? Obviously voting isn't the answer.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Voting is the answer, the problem is you can't get enough people together to agree that voting is the answer.
The two parties are the same, but have polarized the nation so that the "people" will never see it. A few might notice, but they are dismissed. Most people see Abortion or Gay Rights, and not matching economic and military policies (or focus on the different words, even when the actions are the same).
Confirmation bias and false dichotomy have trumped voting, but voting is still the only answer. At least until 10% or more of the nation has been killed by drones wielded by the government. That's what it would take to change public opinion.
Learn to love Alaska
Tesla has enjoyed a great deal of government financing, so its inclusion in the Texas market isn't at all an exercise in free markets. Moreover, dear Democrat, all the most extensive recent studies show that electric cars are less green than petroleum powered cars during the first seven years of their usage. It goes down hill from there. And global warming isn't happening. In the imaginary socialist utopia, where reconstructed humans obey the central command, where there is no by-product to the life process, where change is entirely controlled and evil has been bred out of mankind -- these things like global warming are seen as necessary rationales to compel earthlings to modify their behavior as the left would have them do. Of course there will be no guns either, in the new world, because they won't be needed. We'll all be living under Sharia, I suppose, and wouldn't dare step out of line or we'd lose our heads. MY NAME IS ROD TAYLOR -- so much for anonymous coward, though I do think that screen name would be a declaration of wisdom under the current circumstance, ie. the revelation that the current regime, like all socialist totalitarian governments, has an entire police state apparatus from NSA to IRS just watching for dissent and waiting to pounce. Next thing you know there will be a SWAT team from the EPA or BLM or SS or DHS or the DOE .....or any coalition of the 70 paramilitary units now operating as the dictators private army. And meanwhile, back at slashdot, someone's whining about Texas. They probably don't live there. And Tesla sells all the cars it can make. But, I'll bet, it's the idea of Texas that bugs hell out of 'em. That big state with all those conservatives being allowed to exist and remain free and prosperous. That's why Eric Himmler's DOJ has a hard on for Texas and its attempt to get a voting ID law on the books. If the illegal immigrants were Conservatives -- DOJ would insist on DNA samples and a ten year waiting period before clearing anyone in Texas to vote. We the people want you leftist totalitarian monsters off our backs.
One thing to remember when talking about Southern Conservatives is many of them were Democrats only decades ago - they're more Socially Conservative than anything else. Government handouts are frowned upon in group, but separately they all want their own special targeted assistance, call them tax breaks or subsidies or grants if you like, they're all the same, making someone else pay for their aid.
Just remember - the tipping point that switched them from Democrat to Republican was the Civil Rights Act, which passed before most of the Great Society programs. So back when the Dixiecrats were still Democrats most of the government handouts didn't exist yet.
One party has a significant minority that is loudly in favor of regulating markets in a way that gives consumers a fair shake. The other party says "TAX BREAKS WILL LOWER THE PRICE Y'ALL PAY FOR STUFF!" ad nauseum and deep sixes anyone who says different.