Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ohio Attempting To Stop Tesla From Selling Cars, Again

Unknown Lamer posted about 5 months ago | from the screams-of-dying-middlemen dept.

Transportation 387

cartechboy writes "Man the automotive dealer associations don't like Tesla. Remember that time the Ohio dealers attempted to block Tesla from selling its electric cars in in the Buckeye State. Now, it's happening again. The car dealers are once again pushing legislation that would keep Tesla from selling cars in Ohio. Senate Bill 260 would prohibit the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles from issuing car-dealer licenses to auto manufacturers. Since Tesla owns and operates its own network of 'dealerships' (aka galleries), this would make it so the automaker couldn't acquire a car-dealer license. Section 11 of the bill lists 'a manufacturer... applying for license to sell or lease new motor vehicles at retail' as one of the types of organization ineligible for a dealership license. On top of all this, the language isn't on the Senate floor as a standalone bill. No, it's inserted as an amendment to Senate Bill 137 which is an unrelated bill requiring Ohio drivers to move to the left while passing roadside maintenance vehicles. Is this yet another slimy tactic to try and undercut the new kid on the block?"

cancel ×

387 comments

Pretty Much. (5, Insightful)

SlashdotWanker (1476819) | about 5 months ago | (#46230537)

Yes.

Re:Pretty Much. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230615)

Amazing that a Blue (Democrat voting) state wants to restrict the "free" market and "free" trade. What a hoot!

Re:Pretty Much. (4, Informative)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 5 months ago | (#46230717)

Ohio has a Republican governor and Republican supermajorities in both chambers of its state legislature. The three sponsors of this are all Republicans.

Re:Pretty Much. (1)

schneidafunk (795759) | about 5 months ago | (#46230829)

Which is even more baffling, I usually associate free market to republicans. Dems are usually supporters of bigger government.

Re:Pretty Much. (5, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | about 5 months ago | (#46230873)

Which is even more baffling, I usually associate free market to republicans. Dems are usually supporters of bigger government.

That's what Republicans claim, but there is very little recent evidence of this.

Re:Pretty Much. (4, Informative)

flaming error (1041742) | about 5 months ago | (#46231165)

This. The obvious truth is that each party wants the programs they don't like to vanish, and the programs they do like to expand.

Only purist libertarians honestly want the whole government small. Regardless of their rhetoric, the actions of every other party show they want the government to be ginormous, domineering, and bent on shoving their agenda down the world's throat.

Re:Pretty Much. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46231173)

It's not Free Market vs Bigger Government - it's who's giving us campaign contributions

Re:Pretty Much. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46231199)

The GOP has been fractured by a bunch of progressive lefts that pretend to be conservative. (Boehner, etc). In all they are no better than the democratic party, which sold their souls decades ago.

Still they seem to be doing far better than the previous democratic occupants. Just saying.

Re:Pretty Much. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230905)

Yes, they do want you to believe their branding.

Oddly, they seem quite diligent in wanting you to follow such a methodology for Democrats, but don't see how you might apply the same critical thinking skills to their own side.

Re:Pretty Much. (4, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about 5 months ago | (#46230935)

Which is even more baffling, I usually associate free market to republicans. Dems are usually supporters of bigger government.

The closer you get to the local level, the less each party matches their stereotype. When you get to small towns, you'll have democrats sounding very conservative, if that's the kind of people who live in the town (or vice-versa). Issues that are important at a national level just don't matter at a city level.

What does the town of Riverbank, CA care about the US military budget? But they might have a strong opinion on whether their local car dealership goes out of business.

Only in your mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230951)

Or if you don't actually pay attention to reality.

Re:Pretty Much. (4, Informative)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about 5 months ago | (#46230963)

You can always tell a liar by comparing the actions to the words. Words aside, Republicans have always been the party of big centralized government.

Re:Pretty Much. (4, Informative)

Copid (137416) | about 5 months ago | (#46230981)

It's pretty straightforward for two reasons:

1) Parties bill themselves as X all the time without really being all about X. It often even gets built into the conventional wisdom, even though it's bullshit. Good examples are Republicans being about fiscal responsibility and Democrats being all about tolerating the viewpoints of others.
2) These types of laws are bought by the dealerships. The independant dealerships are owned by local wealthy entrepeneurs. Local wealthy entrepeneurs are usually the biggest political donors, and they swing Republican, so when they want to place a phone call to their pet legislators, they're calling the Republican whose seat their advertising helped to win.

Re:Pretty Much. (4, Informative)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | about 5 months ago | (#46231157)

Republicans are friends of big business. Not of the free market. Over the years the Republican Party has transformed from "conservative" and "liberal" to the Corporate Lobbyists Party. In essence they use the party as a means to pave their way into management level once they retire from politics, happily kissing asses along the way.

Re:Pretty Much. (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 5 months ago | (#46230867)

The three sponsors of this are all Republicans.

The party of less government and pro-business.

Re:Pretty Much. (1)

parkinglot777 (2563877) | about 5 months ago | (#46230997)

Please read the GP post before replying. The GP simply stated the fact to reply to the AC who claimed that this issue is from blue state (OH), but apparently it is a false claim. And then read the TFA and try to relate what it meant before answering less government and pro-business.

Re:Pretty Much. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46231155)

pro-already-existing-business, not necessarily pro-disruptive-new-business.

Re:Pretty Much. (4, Interesting)

nehril (115874) | about 5 months ago | (#46230925)

The history of why the car dealership system exists as it does is actually quite interesting. Back in the day, car dealerships were the good guy underdogs, and car manufacturers were pretty much the devil. The "Planet Money" podcast has a great episode on this:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/12/171814201/episode-435-why-buying-a-car-is-so-awful

Basically explains why buying a car in general sucks (consistently ranked as one of the worst consumer experiences), and why there isn't a "new car supermaket" where you can browse & buy cars from multiple manufacturers.

Re:Pretty Much. (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 5 months ago | (#46231041)

I'll have to watch that later. But here's my opinion on the whole "why buying a car is awful". The reason it's awful, is that for most people, a car is the most expensive item (apart from real estate) that they will ever buy, by a huge margin. And, unlike real estate, cars depreciate at an exceptional rate. A car that costs as much as 1/4 of your yearly salary (which might even be low balling it a little, for people buying new), is going to be a huge decision. Plus people depend on their car. They need it to get back and forth to work. No car means they can't go to work, which means they won't get paid. So people are willing to spend large amounts of money to ensure they get something that will be dependable. Also, cars have become a status item. Half the reason most people buy a car, is probably just to show off to their friends which car they have.

Re:Pretty Much. (4, Funny)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 5 months ago | (#46231121)

You don't know many new car buyers.

Around here (N Cal) apartment parking lots are full of brand new cars. Buying a new car that costs your entire yearly take home is common.

It's all about status symbols. You can get a fairly reliable old Honda for well under 5K$.

There is no group with a lower aggregate IQ then new car buyers. Not even 'audiophiles'.

Re:Pretty Much. (4, Informative)

noobermin (1950642) | about 5 months ago | (#46230791)

Republican governor, Republican general assembly, not to mention a Republican introduced this amendment.

Don't let facts get in your way.

Now, since I happen to be a voter here, I'll make sure no bozos like these get elected in my district come November.

Republican != freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46231145)

True the Republican party touts free market principles and constitutional restraint on government, but more and more our elected officials on both sides of the aisle are pushing crony capitalism instead of free market capitalism.

Under Crony Capitalism, companies enrich themselves not by making better products, but by skewing or preventing competition by force or coercion via the heavy hand of government.

Whether it is democrats pushing "green" subsidies or republicans pushing oil or farm subsidies, the end result is the same. The consumer gets screwed and the companies that hire the best lobbyists get ridiculous returns on their investments.

But the problem is not greedy politicians or self-interested business. The problem is the current political game rewards these things, thus creating a self-perpetuated problem. We need to remove the incentive for these people to engage in this type of bad behavior (as bad as it is, it's completely legal and the rewards are great).

The game needs to be fixed. What we need are:
Eliminate the revolving door from politician to well-payed lobbyist
Term limits (The longer a politician stays in power, the more corruptible they seem to be)
Financial transparency for politicians
Subject politicians to same insider trading laws that apply to business
Patent reforms (government protected monopolies should be rare and limited in duration)
Tax reforms for simple and straightforward system and should be limited to a max percentage of someone's income.

WARNING! DEROS! (-1, Offtopic)

Thud457 (234763) | about 5 months ago | (#46230625)

HOLY SHIT! The National Corvette Museum was just swallowed whole by the earth!

Just 1 Anonymous Coward (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230815)

Dear Slashdot User,

Speaking for myself as AC but reflecting on everything.

This comment is about Beta and the revolt. If you're not interested do move on, sorry for the brief interruption and Thanks.

I'll start by saying surely there's folk bothered by the anti-beta floods. I apologize if it's frustrated anyone who wants normal discussion flow. The fact is there's some of us who feel (super) passionate about this drastic redesign. Nerd or Don Juan, whatever [buzzword that describes you]...it would take a lobotomized sociopath to not even feebly feel something unsettling about the yanking of the historic roots of this site we call slashdot.org. Whether 1997 or 2006 or 2010 was your first time around these woods... there's much to admire and appreciate.

My bias is that I am 101% anti-beta on all points including ease of use, functionality & decimation of dense threaded discussion. It's ugly and hideous to me on so many levels. I could go on with a list UI details, I'll push that aside for now.

What I'm here to say is that as unprecedented as Slashdot's rise was - equally unprecedented is the scene unfolding in the altslashdot/slashcott movement. For or against, let's pause to admit this truth.

I feel what needs acknowledgement of the anti-beta movement is the validity of our own emotions here. I think the most passionate grew up with this site thru many phases of their lives. It's not just about the news business. I view Slashdot as an unprecedented cultural icon. A bizarre and intriguing global public forum - delivered to us reliably at every request direct to our private, personal computers.

-From trolls to flamewars to humor to all the memes, prose & poetry, robot crap-flooding to real intelligent valuable discussion and debate-
(If there was all of 1, it wouldn't work. It was that they all got to play)

Don't let what some call "immature" anti beta flooding fog your perception of the movement that is altslashdot. We are 150 strong in the channel and rising. We are busy resurrecting a dusty time machine that is the Slashcode from a long, ill-destined slumber. In all ~16 years of this site's unprecedented growth and dull drifting into "irrelevance" - can you say the community has ever been this ignited? This united?

I watch Facebook and Google+ destroy persona. I watch Google+ destroy old Google. I watch numerous sites redesign into turgid-with-whitespace messes. For some reason, the decimation of old Slashdot kicks me the in gut harder than the lamest trends of 3.0 and SOME lame things of 2.0.

I'm not saying I have all the answers. I have questions, too. Malda, how could you leave your dear creation in such apparently heavily corporate non-community minded hands? Why not some sort of not-for-profit to keep operational? Anything to at least let it operate with self-respect and not have to morph into something so ugly that is Beta. Oh well, I'm not a tycoon how would I know.

Maybe it's just the last straw for some of us. I believe altslashdot of many things goes beyond Slashdot itself and represents the intangible kicked-in-the-stomach feelings of many as the Internet changes over time - in this case not for the better.

To conclude, disgust with Beta can be expressed in many shades of grey, black or white. A heroic and perilous historical movement is taking place, ##altslashdot being the core of its engine. We battle for our beliefs like never before in the face of a twisted, ugly monster (that is not only Beta itself the end product, but all that is that conceived its bastardly existence).

We are trying to launch a Slashdot of old into the modern world. Our mission is community and absence of pure profit driven design. There's no free lunch but Lord let there be potlucks!

And I encourage you to join not to support nor pan per say... but to simply witness an awesome part of history unfold. A rebirth. A reclamation.

It's not so much whether we fail or succeed. It's about believing in something with feeling strong enough to band together and take charge. It's a fight for control over all frustrations described hereto. It's about going out obnoxiously kicking and screaming. It's about stabbing into the unknown and believing in what we feel is right.

If we fall, splinter, fade to digital dust - so be it. If we succeed then it was meant to be.

Sincerely Thank you for reading... AND FUCK BETA


Using your web browser:
http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=##altslashdot [freenode.net]

http://sylnt.us/wiki [sylnt.us]

Ars Technica Reports on Slashdot Beta (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230949)

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/slashdots-new-interface-could-kill-what-keeps-slashdot-relevant/

Ask... (1, Interesting)

mcspoo (933106) | about 5 months ago | (#46230541)

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer: "Fuck Beta!"

Seriously, tho... of course it's an underhanded tactic. It's not even new. The big "3" did the same thing when Tucker tried to revolutionize the industry. Automakers don't like change at anyone's pace but their own glacial plodding.

Re:Ask... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230781)

All of the above sucks a great big black dick. Yes, that's right. A big black dick.

The strange thing is black penis can bend and flex even when its hard. White dick is more rigid. Beta sucks all of the above.

Ars Technica Reports on Slashdot Beta (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230983)

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/slashdots-new-interface-could-kill-what-keeps-slashdot-relevant/

DuplicateComment

Re:Ars Technica Reports on Slashdot Beta (1, Offtopic)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | about 5 months ago | (#46231179)

Dice doesn't care: they think that /. isn't worth anything to them: http://www.twst.com/update/388... [twst.com]

It's disgusting how much control... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230549)

the Republicans have over all facets of our life. In this example, they control what cars we can buy and where we are allowed to buy them. Of course since they took used cars off of the market a few years ago to raise the price of used cars and to keep those cars off of the market in order to harm minorities and the poor, it is understandable now that they're expanding their attacks. They took used cars from an entire generation. They are the ones that ended the American ideal of owning your own car. They hurt themselves in addition to minorities, but they don't care because they care more about hurting other people than they do about even themselves.

Re: It's disgusting how much control... (1)

MillerHighLife21 (876240) | about 5 months ago | (#46230641)

How is this a Republican thing? The car dealer regulations are a national thing that has been around for years which is the entire reason car dealerships exist. Everybody else has played by those rules for years even though the rules themselves are fairly stupid. Companies like GM have unions on one end and car dealerships on the other end completely milking them dry.

Like it or not this is a huge issue nationwide and Tesla is looking for special treatment. It's not big bad republicans getting in the way of progress here. Tesla is crying because they don't want to play by the same rules everybody else has to and trying to pretend they are innovative because of it.

Re: It's disgusting how much control... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230707)

"Tesla is crying because they don't want to play by the same rules everybody else has to and trying to pretend they are innovative because of it."

THIS is a Republican thing.

ignorance of the law is no excuse (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 5 months ago | (#46230735)

Like it or not this is a huge issue nationwide and Tesla is looking for special treatment. It's not big bad republicans getting in the way of progress here. Tesla is crying because they don't want to play by the same rules everybody else has to and trying to pretend they are innovative because of it.

So this is like the Uber thing, where outsiders come in to innovate, and are willfully clueless about how things currently work, and why.

Re: It's disgusting how much control... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230747)

This is not about auto makers. It's about auto dealers. I can say, without, reservation, that all auto dealership owners are sleazy and dishonest and 100% republican. They have lots of money, and pay republican politicians to protect their outdated business models.

It's also about the anti-environmental brand the conservative repubs carry. They score with their anti-intellectual base by beating up on that hippy pointy headed ivory tower California electric enviro-car company that dares try to sell in their great god fearing state.

Re: It's disgusting how much control... (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | about 5 months ago | (#46230759)

How is this a Republican thing?

Perhaps because the Senator who proposed the amendment to Senate Bill 137 is a republican? Or that the two cosponsors are also republicans? (Senators Patton, Balderson and Hite)

I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with your overall statement but a quick check on the linked article and the bill [state.oh.us] itself makes it obvious that the republicans are the ones going to bat for the existing dealerships.

in this case it seems that free market = freedom to collect campaign funding from the market.

Re: It's disgusting how much control... (1)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about 5 months ago | (#46231005)

Like you, I am not stating a position on this particular bill because I have an instinctive aversion to regulation against the "free market". But like your statement is it then also worth commenting on the fact that Tesla has recieved pretty hefty startup funding from a Democratic federal administration?

A half trillion dollar loan (trillion with a T) is not just a thumb on the scale weighing free market equality. The scales were artificially tipped in favor of Tesla before they tried to sell the first vehicle in Ohio.

Re: It's disgusting how much control... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46231201)

But like your statement is it then also worth commenting on the fact that Tesla has recieved pretty hefty startup funding from a Democratic federal administration

Sure, if the Democratic position was to burn lots of oil, it would be worth commenting on it.

As it stands, we have two major parties in America: the socialist party and the hypocrite party.

Re:It's disgusting how much control... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230709)

Exactly! The main guys pushing this may have D's beside their names, but they are Republicans in all but name. The Republicans are responsible for this attempt to destroy electric cars. They hate them. That's why the first two Chevy Volts in my hometown were torched. That is what those people want to happen to all environmentally friendly cars.

Re:It's disgusting how much control... (3, Informative)

just_another_sean (919159) | about 5 months ago | (#46230789)

The guys pushing this [slashdot.org] have R's next to their names.

Re:It's disgusting how much control... (4, Informative)

gstoddart (321705) | about 5 months ago | (#46230875)

Exactly! The main guys pushing this may have D's beside their names, but they are Republicans in all but name.

No, they're Republicans in name too.

They don't have D's next to their name.

Re:It's disgusting how much control... (4, Insightful)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 5 months ago | (#46231043)

Of course, this has nothing to do with Tesla or people buying Tesla's. Its about HOW cars are sold, not which cars are sold. It is dealership protection, plain and simple. Folks use Tesla to draw attention, but Teslas could be sold under the proposed law just like any car.. via dealerships.

Now, I am very much against this protection of dealerships. But it has nothing to do with Tesla, or political parties. You'll find plenty of protectionism in both parties. It stifles competition. While there may be a few legitimate consumer protection concerns involving unscrupulous car sellers, it doesn't really measure up, and there other ways to afford those protections if they think they are needed.

But anyone who jumps on the "republicans want to ban Tesla" wagon isn't really thinking very much about what really is at the core.

First (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230553)

First Post Yeah!

Meh... (3, Informative)

mythosaz (572040) | about 5 months ago | (#46230555)

Ostensibly these laws exist to stop manufacturers and distributes from cutting out the middle-man. If Ford or Honda can sell directly, they can get rid of the dealerships, and then charge whatever they want for a Ford, since there won't be any competition. They are, on the face, anti-monopoly laws. [The oft-mentioned Texas law does the same thing for theaters - preventing Paramount from eventually owning all the theaters and then stopping showing MGM movies to anyone in the Lone Star State.]

...but we all know it's because car dealers buy politicians, and want to make sure they get their cut of luxury Tesla sales.

Re:Meh... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230623)

Wait, the middle man cuts down costs now? What you say sounds like bull shit propaganda. There is not a monolpoly so long as there are many car manufactuers, and no oligopoly as long as one of them doesn't toe the line.

Re:Meh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46231119)

It's possible, yes, for a middle-man to cut down costs, yes.

For example, let's say you buy a car. It's 1000 miles away at the factory. How to get that car to you? You could travel and pick it up, or you could find somebody who is coming this way anyway to bring the car. Or you could even find somebody who is willing to transport 10 cars at once, for less than it would cost you to go get that car yourself.

See how things can work?

Re:Meh... (5, Insightful)

Gadget27 (1931378) | about 5 months ago | (#46230639)

Cutting out the middle man is not a crime, its an achievement.

What would be the problem if Ford or Honda sold directly to the consumer? Are you suggesting that it's anti-competitive to set the price of your own product? In a scenario without dealerships, there would still be competition... not between dealerships, but between manufactures instead. If you could only buy a Ford from Ford, and the only cars on the market were Ford, then there could be a problem, but there is no shortage of auto manufactures to keep the market competitive.

Re:Meh... (3, Interesting)

minstrelmike (1602771) | about 5 months ago | (#46230779)

Cutting out the middle man is not a crime, its an achievement.

It kind of depends on how you make your own living.
If you make your living as a middle man, it doesn't seem like an achievement; it looks more like a disaster.
And while I dislike getting pedantic, the _definition_ of crime is based on law, not morals or economics.
If the law says cutting out the middle man is a crime, then it is.

Note that I am not arguing pro or con, merely perception vs social reality.

Re:Meh... (2, Insightful)

Hadlock (143607) | about 5 months ago | (#46230835)

It's still an achievement. If you look at it objectively the middle man only exists to expedite sales of cars from the manufacturer to the end user. If it's now more efficent to get the product to the end user directly than working through a proxy, you've cut out a step. In the era before instantanious cheap/free communication the middle man was an important center of local product knowledge, now we have wikis and fedex. I can troubleshoot and order an alternator for a rare car on the internet and install it myself, I don't need the specialized knowledge of the BMW dealership to do this for me anymore. Electric cars have even fewer moving parts to maintain.

Re:Meh... (1)

WillAdams (45638) | about 5 months ago | (#46230821)

Not if you look at the history of this --- the reason to mandate a dealership presence was to prevent car manufacturers from pulling out of a locality, leaving vehicle owners w/o a local warranty/repair option.

Re:Meh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230919)

Perhaps you don't know what the word "ostensibly" means...?

Re: Meh... (1)

mSparks43 (757109) | about 5 months ago | (#46230699)

I don't see how that can be remotely so?
Does ford not already run its own dealerships in ohio?
If not why not?

Re:Meh... (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | about 5 months ago | (#46230775)

I'm not sure you actually understand the concepts you are talking about.

Dealerships do not create competition. A more apt example of monopolistic practices would be if Ford bought out all the other car manufacturers, thus eliminating competition. Ford selling directly to the public would be a cost-savings benefit, and buying from a dealer would have to show some added value to justify doing so.

Have you never bought something 'factory direct' or 'wholesale'? Why would it be okay to get food, lumber, or other things (raw material or finished product) direct from a manufacturer but not motor vehicles?

Protecting businesses again? (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46230557)

It's not the first time politics try to protect businesses, but it's hardly been THIS blatant before.

Free market is a thing of the past. Today you don't buy and sell goods and compete with your competitor with quality and price, you buy and sell laws and compete in who can bribe more politicians.

It's a bit like papal elections in medieval times.

Free Market (1)

buffalodan (1614819) | about 5 months ago | (#46230599)

We just moved the free market to also include laws, because it is more fair to buy and sell legislation than to protect my rights. I really don't get why they think this is such a bad idea. If car companies had more pull over dealerships perhaps they would be less awful.

Re:Free Market (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46231153)

Because in a democracy (or republic, for you nitpickers) the idea isn't that might makes right but to find a balance between satisfying the majority and protecting the minority.

Satisfying a rich/influential/aristocratic/entitled minority on the expense of a majority is as far from the ideals of a representation of the people as possible.

Re:Protecting businesses again? (2)

Akratist (1080775) | about 5 months ago | (#46230603)

And, optionally, you try not to be the guy whom the legislative hammer is brought down on by politicians looking to make a buck, which is the other side of the coin. But, yes, when I hear people complain about the "free market," they obviously have no idea how our current economy functions.

Re:Protecting businesses again? (2)

coolsnowmen (695297) | about 5 months ago | (#46230831)

It's not the first time politics try to protect businesses, but it's hardly been THIS blatant before.

Just after the civil war the big traincompanies lobbies the US federal goverment and recieved shit tons of money to build a transcontinental rail road. The companies convinced the enough people that it was in the best interest of the country to connect it together.

What you'll see, if you look closer is a set of laws passed to ensure the train companies made money, mostly at the expense of tax payers. They manipulated stock prices. They used the power of where the railroad would go exactly to extract favorable land grands from localities. They pushed natives off the land. The term "Robber Barron" applies...

There is a boring book that explains this in excruciating detail. "Railroaded" is like 700+ pages and has over 100 pages of citation if you are wondering where he got any of his information from.

It also is that last time anyone in my office took a book recommendation from me.

Re:Protecting businesses again? (1)

Touvan (868256) | about 5 months ago | (#46231025)

When a group of business men/women lobby the government for special rules on behalf of their own private interests, and those of their companies (or bribe/buy special rules) - I suppose that's a kind of "politics protecting business." I never understand who exactly is supposed to protect "the free market" from this kind of behavior in this quirky American libertarian dream world that IT specialists seem so fond of.

After a "free market' has run it's course to it's predictable - and predicted - consolidated end, exactly what benevolent force would prevent private market forces from exerting their accumulated power influence on a government for their own protection and benefit? And what would prevent them actually becoming the government as some in the same realm of IT specialists have recently suggested?

We used to have this idea that citizens had to work hard and engage in their government (which is to have the consent of the governed to be legitimate) to lobby on behalf of those things that aren't about money - life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc. Now it's all about the all mighty magical "free market," or more accurately neofuedalism.

Medieval times indeed.

Re:Protecting businesses again? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46231189)

An ideal free market is much like the ideal anarchy. In theory, a great concept. In practice, both fail because man is greedy.

Communism failed because man is also lazy, btw.

Re:Protecting businesses again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46231223)

I had to reread your last sentence because first time it scanned as "It's a bit like pay-pal elections..." You may be onto something there.

Once again ... (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 5 months ago | (#46230561)

Once again, companies try to prevent competition through legislation ... and apparently some lawmakers aren't above giving it to them.

This is just buggy whip makers trying to ensure they still get their cut.

Free market my ass.

Re:Once again ... (1)

Touvan (868256) | about 5 months ago | (#46231091)

I guess the rest of us, those with non-market driven interests (life, liberty, happiness, etc.), may have to actually get involved in government! If all politicians are getting is lobbied from private interest A and private interest B, well, they have a decision to make - A or B!

They'll need an option C.

punctuation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230575)

Remember that time the Ohio dealers attempted to block Tesla from selling its electric cars in in the Buckeye State.

Are you ordering me to remember that time?

Re:punctuation (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | about 5 months ago | (#46230725)

Maybe it's just a statement of fact that we do remember that time? For it to be an order 'You' would have to be the understood subject if I'm not mistaken. Unfortunately the sentence in question is hardly understandable as to its intent.

Re:punctuation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230907)

I only know that I'm supposed to man the automotive dealer. And that associations don't like Tesla.
Of course, I had to guess where the punctuation should go.

By asking the question "Is this yet..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230611)

The OP is implying that it is possible that it isn't. That is pretty damn biased considering it is. What is the OP's agenda of hate against Tesla? Why is he claiming it isn't a slimy tactic? It's pretty disgusting how biased posts here have gotten. Now we're seeing a bunch of anti-Tesla spew.

Once again, Captain Tightpants had it right (1)

Behemoth (4137) | about 5 months ago | (#46230643)

"About 50% of the human race is middle man and they don't take kindly to being eliminated."
                                                                          Malcom Reynolds - Firefly

Not just targetting Tesla (5, Interesting)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 5 months ago | (#46230655)

While Tesla is the only manufacturer who is attempting to sell cars without a dealer network, the dealers recognize that if Tesla is successful with this tactic other manufacturers will follow their lead. The car dealers are attempting to protect their business model. I hope the dealers fail because it is not at all clear to me that dealers add any value to the process. It appears that the dealers' association agrees with me. However, I am not positive that car dealers do not add value. If they do, and manufacturers are allowed to sell without them, we will quickly discover what value they add to the equation. In either case, this attempt to enshrine their existence into law is a bad idea.

corepirate nazis trying to stop us from living (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230681)

without band of 85 WMD on credit crown royal rulershjp; no kidding http://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare/7561

to protect our fake 'heritage' the neverending holycost part us; Ihttp://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=unrepentant&sm=3

Missed Opprutunity (4, Insightful)

EMG at MU (1194965) | about 5 months ago | (#46230723)

Generally, politicians with (R) next to their name claim to be against regulations and state/federal interference with free enterprise. Therefore I would expect the (R) members of the Ohio Senate to be up in arms about this law, capitalizing on this opportunity to show that the (D) guys are always putting unreasonable burdens on private enterprise and stifling innovation and growth.

But the fact that the sponsor and co sponsors of the bill are all (R)s contradicts that long held (R) stance. What gives? And why aren't there any reporters pointing out this contradiction?

Re:Missed Opprutunity (1)

M1FCJ (586251) | about 5 months ago | (#46230877)

Money. Campaign donations. Future work when they retire.

Simply, graft. That what it is.

Re:Missed Opprutunity (2)

idontgno (624372) | about 5 months ago | (#46230881)

Because no one with a brain believes the propaganda ^w premise that underlies the apparent contradiction. Anyone the press might report to who would believe such a report already knows. Anyone the press might report to which doesn't already know wouldn't believe.

In other words, it's not news.

More importantly, it wouldn't push up circulation/sales/page views/ad impressions/other all-important sales metrics.

It gets worse (1)

richarnd (962818) | about 5 months ago | (#46230739)

Car dealerships are extremely anticompetitive and politically connected. But they are hardly the only industry like this. Tesla and other innovators are already or soon will be a countervailing political and commercial force, with consumer demand playing a big role. The car dealership cartel will soon be broken - this Ohio move is a death throe. The same can't be said for many other industries, however. Cable TV/local broadband is an easy target but is being disrupted too. I'd focus my outrage on agriculture. The Farm Bill is a far bigger handout, affecting far more consumers, than car dealerships' (relatively) petty corruption.

Three lying republicans ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230751)

This bill is sponsored by Senators Patton, Balderson, and Hite.

The next time a Republican says they are in favor of the free market, remind them of just how full of shit they actually are. They're as willing to mess with the economy and the market as the Soviets ever were.

Everything a Republican tells you about the economy is a lie. They're just there to represent whoever is paying them the most, and ensure the rest of us is subjected to their absurd beliefs. They're the Religious Party of America.

Go ahead and be protectionist douchebags domestically and live in your fantasy world. But, seriously, stop being protectionist hypocrites on the world stage.

Free trade with the US means you can't protect domestic industry, while the US is free to keep doing it.

America can collectively take it up the ass, but the rest of us are getting pretty tired of you.

Manifest assholes.

Re:Three lying republicans ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46231205)

I presume you voted for the "free market" Democrats then?

part of our free trade agreements (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230761)

nobody trades for free. beware falling gargoyles.... free the innocent stem cells. stop trying tp build a better monkey, they obviously do not need our 'help'?

Re:part of our free trade agreements (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 5 months ago | (#46230855)

stop trying tp build a better monkey

I most certainly will not stop trying to build the best damned monkeys this world has ever seen.

They will be able to fling poo with great accuracy across vast distances.

People won't know I've released the monkeys until they get monkey poo in the face and have NO idea of where it came from.

And when not flinging poo from afar, they will entertain me by choreographing monkey dance numbers.

I shall never give up my quest for a better monkey.

Goodbye Beta/Slashdot / Proposal (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230763)

First time Beta was forced on me.

Someone should write a CSS/JS-Proxy to make this site like Slashdot 2010 again. Until then... wait ... no Slashdot? *tries links (command-line-browser)* - GNU/links it is then.

Change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230771)

The most dangerous phrase in the language is, "We've always done it this way."
          ~ Grace Hopper

as someone in the auto industry... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230785)

I can tell you one thing related to this article, that being, the auto dealers, independent business owners, have been worried FOR YEARS that the major auto manufacturers in the U.S. (Ford, Chrysler, GM) are going to start cutting out the middle man and only allowing manufacturer outlets (non-dealers, non-independent business owners) to sell new vehicles.

That may or may not be part of the reason why they're doing this.

Just food for thought.

#fuckohio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230817)

#stillabettersitethanreddit

There are still Commies states? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230825)

What happened to so called capitalism and competing based on better products?
Oh, well. Commies rules.

Congress-speak (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230833)

The inclusion of the dealership issue in this bill is easily-understood once you make the mental translation of "roadside maintenance vehicle" to "large obstruction impeding forward progress" and "move to the left" as "commit to a large political donation"...

In my country the solution would be simple... (2)

Zaatxe (939368) | about 5 months ago | (#46230839)

The owners of Tesla Motors would also be the owners of ANOTHER company that controls the network of dealerships.
Wouldn't that work in the USA?

Re:In my country the solution would be simple... (1)

kervin (64171) | about 5 months ago | (#46231177)

The Ohio law bans subsidiaries and affiliate companies. It's in the linked document.

Why is the Republican's concept of a "free market" (1)

romanval (556418) | about 5 months ago | (#46230857)

different then their implementation?

Re:Why is the Republican's concept of a "free mark (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230955)

The one who pays more gets more freedom.

This is a legitimate complaint (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230931)

I'll probably get flamed for this, but I saw an argument a while ago on why this is a valid complaint from the dealerships AND existing car manufacturers. At first I had a hard time believing this, but hear me out.

A long time ago, the automakers tried to do exactly what Tesla is doing now in setting up their own chain of manufacturer owned showrooms. To make a long story short, this turned out to have massive consequences for consumers, as it created a way for dealerships to force their customers to pay outrageous prices for simple repairs and parts because they didn't have an alternative source for ANYTHING. Hence, the government stepped in and said, "No no, this is not reasonable and you can't do this" and viola! Independent dealerships sprang into existence and that's why you don't see Ford & Chevy owned showrooms anymore.

Now, Tesla is doing EXACTLY what the Big 3 was told that they COULD NOT DO all those years ago and yet here we are, crapping on them as being anti-competition and anti-innovation. You bet your ass it makes business sense for Tesla to do this, as it completely cuts out the middle man and allows them to maximize profits while retaining completely control over their entire supply chain.

Ask yourself this; If you owned a Ford, would you rather be able to shop around and find the best service/value for your money or be forced to to pay out the ass for manufacturer made proprietary parts?

Re:This is a legitimate complaint (1)

envelope (317893) | about 5 months ago | (#46231045)

I don't see what repairs have to do with showrooms. Having the manufacturer own the dealership has nothing to do with where I take my car to get it repaired.

Re:This is a legitimate complaint (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 5 months ago | (#46231219)

The markets size and modern shipping has eliminated the original problem.

These days stealerships are a problem.

Tesla will fix a Gordian knot left in the laws because of conditions that no longer exist.

On a metanote... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46230961)

It's actually rather amazing how the overall level of discourse has dramatically improved on /. the past few days, ever since the boycott took effect...

Washington State is also trying to block Tesla! (1)

worldthinker (536300) | about 5 months ago | (#46230971)

I'm shocked to find out that Liberal and Libertarian Washington State is trying to interfere with Tesla's business model. Washington has the most Tesla sales per capita and yet these legislators obviously paid off by the auto dealers has put forward a bill that would stop Telsa from adding stores.

http://www.geekwire.com/2014/p... [geekwire.com]

Hehe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46231019)

You know business is on downhill when they need to resolv in this sort of dirty tricks... Thats free market economy for you... Consumer docent win...

No competition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46231063)

Not many people in Ohio can afford a $100k car, especially an electric one without heat. Try driving that when it's 10 below zero.

Re:No competition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46231131)

Lots of ppl also own rear wheel drive sports cars, and dont drive those in the winter snow either.

Bureaucratic Nightmare (1)

Richard Meadows (3389537) | about 5 months ago | (#46231069)

Bureaucracies are inherently resistant to change, especially when a new technology comes along to undermine the assumptions on which the bureaucracies were built. Those bureaucracies’ express mission is to hinder progress. It is our express duty to educate them so they know that the hinderance they are attempting will fall as surely as the Berlin Wall fell. Using technology to improve people's lives is too easy and so welcome it won't fail.

all business "licensing" is a scam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46231083)

regulation is fine, licensing is just a way to give politicians more power and should be done away with

Perfect time for a "free market" speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46231111)

This would be a perfect time for some american to give us a "USA, most free country in the wold" unless you want to sell a car in some states..

Just Ohio? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46231139)

So, you're saying that people living in Ohio will have to purchase their new Telsa's in another state, thus helping their poor neighboring states? I'm okay with that.

Cat and mouse (1)

kervin (64171) | about 5 months ago | (#46231149)

The simple solution for Tesla is to outsource their galleries to some degree. I believe Tesla did that in some states and the Ohio law bans "affiliated entities" as well, but this really will become a "cat and mouse" game.

Regular dealerships are "affiliated" with the manufacturer at some level, so it sounds like Tesla will have to find that balance as well.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...