North Carolina Attempts to Ban Tesla

[rehmwa 2]

I like this thread. It really highlights how politicians think. And people intrenched in a restrictive society think.

1 - Regular cars are required to go through dealers for some reason.

2 - The Tesla group argued that the Tesla isn't a 'regular car' so they didn't need to be restricted like those other guys.

3 - Other guys cried that this is not a fair competitive position. So they scream that the other guy should be bound like they are.

4 - So a law was passed to level the playing field. By bounding the other guy to the same rules.

--- so far, so good, right? everybody is on equal playing ground.


but the idiotic thing that happened was the law required Teslas to be sold under the same restrictions

no one even asked about the other alternative - to remove the restrictions on the regular car sales


It's always telling that, when given a choice to either add restrictions, or reduce restrictions. Government will choose to (((fill in the blank and win a prize))) and people think this is normal and not odd

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,148]

Quote

It's always telling that, when given a choice to either add restrictions, or reduce restrictions. Government will choose to (((fill in the blank and win a prize))) and people think this is normal and not odd

It's not just government. Just about any organization will choose to keep what they have, because corporate/organization memory remembers why those restrictions exist, or else they think of all the downsides, without considering the potential upsides.

Many (maybe even most) people are averse to change when it affects how they do things daily.

It'd be nice to tear stuff out. It takes a dictator, whether corporate, organizational, or governmental, to make it happen. We we tend to object to governmental dictators

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,433]

>The trick, of course, is trying to find a cure that is not significantly worse than the disease.

Ay, there's the rub.

>The difference between Organized Labor and Organized Crime is all too
>often a matter of nomenclature, at best.

Not true at all! Organized labor does the political bribe thing much better than organized crime does.

[CygnusX-1 42]

rehmwa

--- so far, so good, right? everybody is on equal playing ground.

There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.


Neil Peart

[rehmwa 2]

wmw999

It's not just government. Just about any organization will choose to keep what they have, because corporate/organization memory remembers why those restrictions exist, or else they think of all the downsides, without considering the potential upsides.

my point is this - whenever a group comes out and cries "unfair, those other guys get special treatment, me too" - the first thing to look at is deleting that treatment, or seeing if it's OVERregulated. Not under-inclusive.

the first corollary is: a solution is false if it leads to more complexity instead simplification.

the second corollary: the more complicated the rules are, the more opportunity for abuse is designed in

addendum: the second corollary is absolutely intentional. i.e., abuse of power is the clear end game - anything else positive or negative is a side effect


examples? let's see:

government should get out of special benefits for married people altogether - do we delete those special benefits because it preferences one group of people over every other? not - more and more pairings demanding "me too" - still at the expense of singles

government shouldn't be giving tax exempt status - do we lobby to get rid of it? no, more and more groups trying to find ways to get in the 'special' group "me too" - AND, government abusing that power now - if we didn't have special statuses there wouldn't be the abuse

cars trying to redefine themselves to get around cumbersome rules.....point already made

--- ^^^ band aids that don't address the real problem......

more? let's see....

subsidies and bailouts? again, just don't do it

special tax brackets for different groups? just don't do it

health care - some pigs are not required to follow the new rules, some are - depends on who your friends are apparently

go buy special light bulbs - .....

etc etc ad nauseum

the sole purpose of government today seems to be the granting and denial of special status to various groups for the purpose of extending the power of those in charge. I thought the purpose of law to ensure that 'special status' is not created by government. Who didn't get the memo?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[winsor 187]

Bertt

OK, here's a different way to say it. If I champion innovation in the marketplace and a reduction or elimination of regulations, then ask for regulations to protect me when someone's innovation gives them a competitive advantage over my interests, then I'm a fucking hypocrite and a damned liar.

Okay, so what did I say that had anything to do with the above?

Was it simply happenstance that it was at my post where you chose to chime in?

[winsor 187]

billvon

>The trick, of course, is trying to find a cure that is not significantly worse than the disease.

Ay, there's the rub.

>The difference between Organized Labor and Organized Crime is all too
>often a matter of nomenclature, at best.

Not true at all! Organized labor does the political bribe thing much better than organized crime does.

I stand corrected.

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

no one even asked about the other alternative - to remove the restrictions on the regular car sales

What leads you to make that statement?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

I still think government getting into business is bad. That's nite their job.

Yes it is.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Bertt 0]

Not happenstance at all. It's one thing for a big-government liberal to ask for more big government. That's a dog-bites-man story.
The guy sponsoring this legislation prides himself (according to his own website) on being "one of the most pro-business members of the General Assembly." He brags that he "cut through the red tape of bureaucratic regulations." That's a man-bites-dog story.

You don't have to outrun the bear.