This would be the only reason I would want it voted down / vetoed. If you enable this for electric, it should be enabled for every other car manufacturer.
Are you opposed to iteration? Opposed to the bill passing -- believe dealerships would let it pass? Tesla has to potentially wait orders of magnitude longer while a battle they don't care about ensues -- dealerships versus gas-automobile manufacturers?
I'm opposed to treating manufactures of automobiles and the automobiles themselves[1] differently. So, I guess that means I would want it to apply to all (since there are other ideas for alternate energy cars) or none.
1) I am still waiting for the equivalent of a "gas tax" on energy used by electric cars to pay for the roads
Let's be clear that I and likely Musk -- Tesla -- are not opposed to equal things being equal. I honestly don't know the history and the inner-workings of why automobile manufacturers are barred from selling their goods directly to consumers. If I can liken the music/movie/etc industry to the automobile industry, I can understand why Tesla would not want to wait years, decades, forever? to stave off dealerships, if they don't have to. In all likelihood, the gas-automobile manufacturers are just as likely to be OPPOSED to this bill, if they think it will make Tesla go away and they can continue to get kickbacks from dealerships.
> Let's be clear that I and likely Musk -- Tesla -- are not opposed to equal things being equal.
I hope you're right, but actions are what counts.
As to the rest, I am seriously sick of people using the law as their own weapon against others. A tax break here, a special rule there, and we as voters and consumers lose because there are more law on the books than we need.
These laws originally made sense for car manufacturers that first completely delegated selling and service to dealerships and then tried to undercut them with factory discounts and other things.
The problem here is that Tesla never had any dealerships and does not intent to start any either. So none of these laws should apply to them.
Play by the same rules as everyone else and get some dealerships or work to change the rules for everyone. Anything else is just one more rule piled onto a stack that has more "my" exceptions.
> Every other car manufacturer with no dealerships.
What? Of course it doesn't say anything like that. That was obviously an extension of your statement; enabling any car manufacturer to sell directly to customers would be a diametral opposite to what dealership laws intended in the first place, and my comment was supposed to inform you that there is indeed a little sparkle of sense and justification in dealership laws.
But you obviously lack any insight into the topic at hand and are just feeding off your "more exceptions!11" reflex. That does not a good discussion make.
> That was obviously an extension of your statement
I didn't find it that obvious of an extension. If there is a "little sparkle of sense and justification in dealership laws" then the same argument should apply to Tesla and the only justification you give is that they don't currently have dealerships.
Why should Tesla do all the work for all the other car manufacturers. They have a lot more money and yet they do nothing. I say fuck them. Tesla is doing the right thing. It is picking a battle that has a chance of succeeding.
You are preaching to the quire. I do not disagree with you. Also, we should have world peace, nobody should die of hunger. etc. etc. Is easy to talk idealistically but the reality is that Tesla cannot change the status quo on its own and you saying all or nothing is not constructive at all.
Because, it is at moments like these where new things happen, that old rules have a shot of changing. Everything that lasts is "idealistic", but people settle for "me" and deviate into hyperbole because its easier.
