|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 20 2013 01:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 00:19 SayGen wrote:
Limited government is best government, the more capital in the hands of the people (IE not taken away via taxes and BS rules and regulations or gov stimulated inflation) the more opportunity for social movement (IE: The capability behind the concept of the American Dream).
A tax of any kind, regardless of nomenclature is a hindrance to growth. I refer to Milton Freidman who explains this with a far superior articulation than I ever could.
If you support ANY kind of government spending that isn't useful to the whole, I am against you.
Fire, Police, medical response, Military, etc help everyone.
Phones for illegal immigrants--- not so much. I refer to reality which, regardless of what Milton Freidman says, shows that wealth naturally pools at the top and requires forceful redistribution.
Who is Freidman?
|
On May 19 2013 23:06 frogrubdown wrote:
Repeating the word, 'fallacy', doesn't make you sound any more authoritative (especially not when backed up by wikipedia links based in obvious misinterpretations of what the other person was saying and when freely misusing the term to apply not just to arguments but to conclusions).
If you have a problem with someone's argument, point out where it goes wrong. If you have a problem with a proposition someone asserts, point out why it is false. Instead calling these things "fallacies" is no improvement on responding with, "You're a dumb face."
How on earth could it have been a misinterpretation for you. He literally equated that the only goal for the other side of the debate was advocating a civil war. Thats putting the impudence of having that position against being that you want to start a civil war. Thats very clearly what was outlined in the wikipedia link that I gave him.
You ironically didn't even make an argument in your argument that my argument wasn't an argument. You not understanding fallacies and you interpreting it as me saying "You're a dumb face" is your problem not mine.
On May 20 2013 02:37 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 01:18 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2013 00:19 SayGen wrote:
Limited government is best government, the more capital in the hands of the people (IE not taken away via taxes and BS rules and regulations or gov stimulated inflation) the more opportunity for social movement (IE: The capability behind the concept of the American Dream).
A tax of any kind, regardless of nomenclature is a hindrance to growth. I refer to Milton Freidman who explains this with a far superior articulation than I ever could.
If you support ANY kind of government spending that isn't useful to the whole, I am against you.
Fire, Police, medical response, Military, etc help everyone.
Phones for illegal immigrants--- not so much. I refer to reality which, regardless of what Milton Freidman says, shows that wealth naturally pools at the top and requires forceful redistribution. Who is Freidman?
He is to Keynes as keynes was to marx in the economics world.
|
On May 20 2013 02:55 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2013 23:06 frogrubdown wrote:
Repeating the word, 'fallacy', doesn't make you sound any more authoritative (especially not when backed up by wikipedia links based in obvious misinterpretations of what the other person was saying and when freely misusing the term to apply not just to arguments but to conclusions).
If you have a problem with someone's argument, point out where it goes wrong. If you have a problem with a proposition someone asserts, point out why it is false. Instead calling these things "fallacies" is no improvement on responding with, "You're a dumb face." How on earth could it have been a misinterpretation for you. He literally equated that the only goal for the other side of the debate was advocating a civil war. Thats putting the impudence of having that position against being that you want to start a civil war. Thats very clearly what was outlined in the wikipedia link that I gave him. You ironically didn't even make an argument in your argument that my argument wasn't an argument. You not understanding fallacies and you interpreting it as me saying "You're a dumb face" is your problem not mine.
I didn't go into the specifics of your mislabeling because responding to people with a wikipedia article about a fallacy is terrible posting whether or not you get the fallacy right. In this case, your attribution was very far off however, with the only similarity between what hunter said and the fallacy being that both contain a disjunction.
First, Hunter claimed that another group was committed to an extreme disjunctive claim; he never asserted that claim himself so couldn't possibly be committed to proposing a false dilemma (at worst, he could be accused of straw manning, though that would ignore the obvious use of hyperbole). I can say, "Group X makes use of inference pattern Y" without myself using inference pattern Y.
Second, what Hunter claimed the other group was doing is not even an example of a false dilemma. False dilemmas are disjunctions that leave out relevant possibilities. The disjunction under consideration concerned armed insurrection or anything other than armed insurrection. Needless to say, I hope, this disjunction does not leave out any alternatives. The problem that Hunter sees with it is rather that he sees the group as disvaluing one of the two disjuncts (namely, the second).
So, you were in fact many degrees away from accurately diagnosing a fallacy in the post.
In conclusion, stop talking about "fallacies". You don't know what you're talking about and they aren't a useful discussion tool even for those that do.
|
On May 20 2013 03:15 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 02:55 Sermokala wrote:On May 19 2013 23:06 frogrubdown wrote:
Repeating the word, 'fallacy', doesn't make you sound any more authoritative (especially not when backed up by wikipedia links based in obvious misinterpretations of what the other person was saying and when freely misusing the term to apply not just to arguments but to conclusions).
If you have a problem with someone's argument, point out where it goes wrong. If you have a problem with a proposition someone asserts, point out why it is false. Instead calling these things "fallacies" is no improvement on responding with, "You're a dumb face." How on earth could it have been a misinterpretation for you. He literally equated that the only goal for the other side of the debate was advocating a civil war. Thats putting the impudence of having that position against being that you want to start a civil war. Thats very clearly what was outlined in the wikipedia link that I gave him. You ironically didn't even make an argument in your argument that my argument wasn't an argument. You not understanding fallacies and you interpreting it as me saying "You're a dumb face" is your problem not mine. I didn't go into the specifics of your mislabeling because responding to people with a wikipedia article about a fallacy is terrible posting whether or not you get the fallacy right. In this case, your attribution was very far off however, with the only similarity between what hunter said and the fallacy being that both contain a disjunction. First, Hunter claimed that another group was committed to an extreme disjunctive claim; he never asserted that claim himself so couldn't possibly be committed to proposing a false dilemma (at worst, he could be accused of straw manning, though that would ignore the obvious use of hyperbole). I can say, "Group X makes use of inference pattern Y" without myself using inference pattern Y. Second, what Hunter claimed the other group was doing is not even an example of a false dilemma. False dilemmas are disjunctions that leave out relevant possibilities. The disjunction under consideration concerned armed insurrection or anything other than armed insurrection. Needless to say, I hope, this disjunction does not leave out any alternatives. The problem that Hunter sees with it is rather that he sees the group as disvaluing one of the two disjuncts (namely, the second). So, you were in fact many degrees away from accurately diagnosing a fallacy in the post. In conclusion, stop talking about "fallacies". You don't know what you're talking about and they aren't a useful discussion tool even for those that do.
So you have a wildly irrational distrust of wikipedia for some reason and didn't bother reading it. Its making a reference to a reference guide. He was inferring that his opponents by simply using the "tax and spend talking points" were advocating for "pattern Y". By using this to discredit his opponents (because they must be crazy confederates if they disagree with me) It was him indeed presenting his opponent with a false dilemma of their position. He was leaving out any relevant possibilities for people to argue against him. He very clearly isn't making a point of his own but rather responding to disvalue someone else's post.
You are the one that is trying to scrap on anything at all to find a hole in my post and failing. Stop projecting what you should be doing and accept that you're wrong. He was the one that used a fallacy and I'm the one pointing out that he used a fallacy for him to stop useing it. You are the one supporting his fallacy so telling me that they arn't a useful discussion tool is only helping my case.
|
On May 20 2013 00:19 SayGen wrote:
Limited government is best government, the more capital in the hands of the people (IE not taken away via taxes and BS rules and regulations or gov stimulated inflation) the more opportunity for social movement (IE: The capability behind the concept of the American Dream).
A tax of any kind, regardless of nomenclature is a hindrance to growth. I refer to Milton Freidman who explains this with a far superior articulation than I ever could.
If you support ANY kind of government spending that isn't useful to the whole, I am against you.
Fire, Police, medical response, Military, etc help everyone.
Phones for illegal immigrants--- not so much.
And yet countries with far more redistribution have better social mobility. Reality disagrees with your ideology.
|
On May 20 2013 03:36 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 03:15 frogrubdown wrote:On May 20 2013 02:55 Sermokala wrote:On May 19 2013 23:06 frogrubdown wrote:
Repeating the word, 'fallacy', doesn't make you sound any more authoritative (especially not when backed up by wikipedia links based in obvious misinterpretations of what the other person was saying and when freely misusing the term to apply not just to arguments but to conclusions).
If you have a problem with someone's argument, point out where it goes wrong. If you have a problem with a proposition someone asserts, point out why it is false. Instead calling these things "fallacies" is no improvement on responding with, "You're a dumb face." How on earth could it have been a misinterpretation for you. He literally equated that the only goal for the other side of the debate was advocating a civil war. Thats putting the impudence of having that position against being that you want to start a civil war. Thats very clearly what was outlined in the wikipedia link that I gave him. You ironically didn't even make an argument in your argument that my argument wasn't an argument. You not understanding fallacies and you interpreting it as me saying "You're a dumb face" is your problem not mine. I didn't go into the specifics of your mislabeling because responding to people with a wikipedia article about a fallacy is terrible posting whether or not you get the fallacy right. In this case, your attribution was very far off however, with the only similarity between what hunter said and the fallacy being that both contain a disjunction. First, Hunter claimed that another group was committed to an extreme disjunctive claim; he never asserted that claim himself so couldn't possibly be committed to proposing a false dilemma (at worst, he could be accused of straw manning, though that would ignore the obvious use of hyperbole). I can say, "Group X makes use of inference pattern Y" without myself using inference pattern Y. Second, what Hunter claimed the other group was doing is not even an example of a false dilemma. False dilemmas are disjunctions that leave out relevant possibilities. The disjunction under consideration concerned armed insurrection or anything other than armed insurrection. Needless to say, I hope, this disjunction does not leave out any alternatives. The problem that Hunter sees with it is rather that he sees the group as disvaluing one of the two disjuncts (namely, the second). So, you were in fact many degrees away from accurately diagnosing a fallacy in the post. In conclusion, stop talking about "fallacies". You don't know what you're talking about and they aren't a useful discussion tool even for those that do. So you have a wildly irrational distrust of wikipedia for some reason and didn't bother reading it. Its making a reference to a reference guide. He was inferring that his opponents by simply using the "tax and spend talking points" were advocating for "pattern Y". By using this to discredit his opponents (because they must be crazy confederates if they disagree with me) It was him indeed presenting his opponent with a false dilemma of their position. He was leaving out any relevant possibilities for people to argue against him. He very clearly isn't making a point of his own but rather responding to disvalue someone else's post. You are the one that is trying to scrap on anything at all to find a hole in my post and failing. Stop projecting what you should be doing and accept that you're wrong. He was the one that used a fallacy and I'm the one pointing out that he used a fallacy for him to stop useing it. You are the one supporting his fallacy so telling me that they arn't a useful discussion tool is only helping my case.
Wikipedia is great, but responding to people by citing their pages on simple topics is among the most condescending, dickish posting behaviors imaginable. Also, as I said, my problems with arguing with people by referencing fallacies are general; they don't simply stem from sourcing them in wikipedia. Lists of fallacies are a weak and misleading tool that are borderline useless in general and completely useless if you know formal logic.
As to your other "points", he didn't present anyone with a dilemma; he presented someone as offering a dilemma themselves. This is an important and basic distinction. Further, that dilemma did not leave out any alternatives because it had the form: 'A v ~A'. Its problem was that there were good things in the ~A category which weren't being recognized as good. This is not a false dilemma problem.
edit: I should probably stop posting about peoples logical problems on days when I do a lot of grading. Evidently, long days of grading completely sap my tolerance/patience for human error. In any case, I've said all I have to say on the topic and need to lay off the arguing for a while anyway.
|
On May 20 2013 02:55 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 02:37 Paljas wrote:On May 20 2013 01:18 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2013 00:19 SayGen wrote:
Limited government is best government, the more capital in the hands of the people (IE not taken away via taxes and BS rules and regulations or gov stimulated inflation) the more opportunity for social movement (IE: The capability behind the concept of the American Dream).
A tax of any kind, regardless of nomenclature is a hindrance to growth. I refer to Milton Freidman who explains this with a far superior articulation than I ever could.
If you support ANY kind of government spending that isn't useful to the whole, I am against you.
Fire, Police, medical response, Military, etc help everyone.
Phones for illegal immigrants--- not so much. I refer to reality which, regardless of what Milton Freidman says, shows that wealth naturally pools at the top and requires forceful redistribution. Who is Freidman? He is to Keynes as keynes was to marx in the economics world.
Wasnt a serious question, just pointing out that the person refering to Friedman didnt even spell his name right.
|
On May 20 2013 04:37 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 03:36 Sermokala wrote:On May 20 2013 03:15 frogrubdown wrote:On May 20 2013 02:55 Sermokala wrote:On May 19 2013 23:06 frogrubdown wrote:
Repeating the word, 'fallacy', doesn't make you sound any more authoritative (especially not when backed up by wikipedia links based in obvious misinterpretations of what the other person was saying and when freely misusing the term to apply not just to arguments but to conclusions).
If you have a problem with someone's argument, point out where it goes wrong. If you have a problem with a proposition someone asserts, point out why it is false. Instead calling these things "fallacies" is no improvement on responding with, "You're a dumb face." How on earth could it have been a misinterpretation for you. He literally equated that the only goal for the other side of the debate was advocating a civil war. Thats putting the impudence of having that position against being that you want to start a civil war. Thats very clearly what was outlined in the wikipedia link that I gave him. You ironically didn't even make an argument in your argument that my argument wasn't an argument. You not understanding fallacies and you interpreting it as me saying "You're a dumb face" is your problem not mine. I didn't go into the specifics of your mislabeling because responding to people with a wikipedia article about a fallacy is terrible posting whether or not you get the fallacy right. In this case, your attribution was very far off however, with the only similarity between what hunter said and the fallacy being that both contain a disjunction. First, Hunter claimed that another group was committed to an extreme disjunctive claim; he never asserted that claim himself so couldn't possibly be committed to proposing a false dilemma (at worst, he could be accused of straw manning, though that would ignore the obvious use of hyperbole). I can say, "Group X makes use of inference pattern Y" without myself using inference pattern Y. Second, what Hunter claimed the other group was doing is not even an example of a false dilemma. False dilemmas are disjunctions that leave out relevant possibilities. The disjunction under consideration concerned armed insurrection or anything other than armed insurrection. Needless to say, I hope, this disjunction does not leave out any alternatives. The problem that Hunter sees with it is rather that he sees the group as disvaluing one of the two disjuncts (namely, the second). So, you were in fact many degrees away from accurately diagnosing a fallacy in the post. In conclusion, stop talking about "fallacies". You don't know what you're talking about and they aren't a useful discussion tool even for those that do. So you have a wildly irrational distrust of wikipedia for some reason and didn't bother reading it. Its making a reference to a reference guide. He was inferring that his opponents by simply using the "tax and spend talking points" were advocating for "pattern Y". By using this to discredit his opponents (because they must be crazy confederates if they disagree with me) It was him indeed presenting his opponent with a false dilemma of their position. He was leaving out any relevant possibilities for people to argue against him. He very clearly isn't making a point of his own but rather responding to disvalue someone else's post. You are the one that is trying to scrap on anything at all to find a hole in my post and failing. Stop projecting what you should be doing and accept that you're wrong. He was the one that used a fallacy and I'm the one pointing out that he used a fallacy for him to stop useing it. You are the one supporting his fallacy so telling me that they arn't a useful discussion tool is only helping my case. Wikipedia is great, but responding to people by citing their pages on simple topics is among the most condescending, dickish posting behaviors imaginable. Also, as I said, my problems with arguing with people by referencing fallacies are general; they don't simply stem from sourcing them in wikipedia. Lists of fallacies are a weak and misleading tool that are borderline useless in general and completely useless if you know formal logic. As to your other "points", he didn't present anyone with a dilemma; he presented someone as offering a dilemma themselves. This is an important and basic distinction. Further, that dilemma did not leave out any alternatives because it had the form: 'A v ~A'. Its problem was that there were good things in the ~A category which weren't being recognized as good. This is not a false dilemma problem. edit: I should probably stop posting about peoples logical problems on days when I do a lot of grading. Evidently, long days of grading completely sap my tolerance/patience for human error. In any case, I've said all I have to say on the topic and need to lay off the arguing for a while anyway.
I didn't use Wikipedia as the only thing to respond to him I used it as a point of reference for which particular fallacy I was accusing him of and which one specifically it was. There are a lot of different "false dilemma" fallacy names so by linking the Wikipedia page chronicling the fallacy itself we were able to be on the same page on exactly what fallacy I was referring to him using. Fallacies are the abuse of logic and anyone not versed in them can get brainwashed into just any ideology along the way. I don't know how you got on such an elitist track where you think "knowing formal logic" somehow makes the ignorance of the abuse of logic justifiable.
Presenting someone as offering a Dilemma is still him using the Dilemma when hes using it to devalue the other persons argument. Like what the fuck does "Av~A" even mean. You're being completely irrational and just straight making things up. There was no "problem that there was good things in the ~A category which weren't being recognized as good" he was presenting the argument that there was no good arguments in the ~A category because they wanted to advocate armed insurrection.
I have no idea what you were seeing by his post but it clearly wasn't what he posted. I guess we can agree to disagree on what he posted.
|
On May 19 2013 22:56 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2013 17:10 HunterX11 wrote:On May 19 2013 09:49 Sermokala wrote:On May 19 2013 08:29 HunterX11 wrote:On May 19 2013 08:08 Danglars wrote:On May 18 2013 17:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 18 2013 08:28 Danglars wrote:But of course, once we raise taxes ... many times more money gets spent! It's really just a huge tax hike with talk about closing the deficit. If passed, Congress is free to just spend many more times the money that's coming in, and increase the federal deficit as they always do. Tax and spend is the name of the game, and Obama's business as usual on that front. Well, I tried closing the deficit, but those mean old Republicans ... ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gaCYxzV.gif) I hadn't really heard of Congressman Mike Kelly before I read this news article. He grilled the departing IRS commissioner on his failure of responsibility and the ramifications of this scandal. Check out this LINK for the video. REP. MIKE KELLY (R-PA): This has nothing to do with political parties. This has to do with highly targeted groups. This reconfirms everything the American public believes. This is a huge blow to the faith and trust that the American people have in their government. Is there any limit to the scope where you folks can go? Is there anything at all? Is there any way that we could ask you is there any question that you should have asked?
My goodness. How much money do you have in your wallet? Who do you get emails from? Whose sign do you put up in your front yard? This is a tax question? And you don't think that's intimidating? It's sure as hell intimidating. And I don't know that I got any answers from you today. And I don't know that -- what Mr. George said is great work -- but you know what? There's a heck of a lot more that has to come out in this. Any anybody that sat here today and listened to what you had to say, I am more concerned today than I was before, and the fact that you all can do just about anything you want to anybody?
You know, you can put anybody out of business that you want. Any time you want. I gotta tell you. You could talk about how you're a horribly run organization, if you're on the other side of the fence, you're not giving that excuse. And the IRS comes in, you're not allowed to be shoddy, you're not allowed to be run horribly, you're not allowed to make mistakes, you're not allowed to do one damn thing that doesn't come in compliance, and if you do, you're held responsible right then. I just think the American people have seen what's going on right now in their government. This is absolutely an overreach and this is an outrage for all Americans. The deficit is already fixed. Haven't you heard. Government spending has outpaced inflation by 43% in the last 10 years, and you're okay imagining that new spending measures in the next 10 years will be tame? Excuse me, pardon me, but if everything regarding the deficit is fine, why is Obama's budget raising taxes by $1 trillion dollars? Have we not seen revenues chasing after wildly increasing spending in the last 30 years? Heck, have we seen a CBO 10-year prediction in the same timeframe be close to accurate? It's tax and spend: Obama is proposing a $1,000,000,000,000+ tax increase, Congress and the President will follow after with more ways to spend the money. Literally nothing the government will feasibly do short of some change brought on by armed insurrection or something is going to qualify as anything other than "tax and spend" by the talking point metric, so why even talk about it as some political issue that's a valid object of concern for parliamentarian-ism instead of advocating revolution? That would be more forthright at least. For your future reference this is by and far the clearest example of a False dilemma argument there is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemmaUsing fallacies as your only form of argument just makes you look stupid, Despite the aristocratic words you use to express your views it doesn't change the shit you put on the screen. Consider the following logical structure for an argument: If P, then Q. If !P, then Q. If !Q, then Q. It doesn't even really rise to the level of fallacy; it's just meaningless. How exactly am I supposed to address such an argument? Should I just give up and concede that Q is immutably true? Don't make your argument a "I win or you want a civil war" argument. It rise's to a falacy when you say that your opponents are advocating revolution. surely you can't be that blind that you don't see how that goes over the line a bit.
The government collects revenues through taxation and spends money so collected in order to perform its duties. Even under feudalism this was true. Even if Ron Paul were president this would be true.
|
Protectionism is what drives American business not the free market:
A bill being considered in North Carolina, where there are currently 80 Teslas on the road and another 60 expected, would prevent the company from selling vehicles online. In Virginia, the state denied the company a dealer license to open a store.
Texas lawmakers are expected to ignore an effort by Tesla to gain an exception to strict franchise laws that prohibit factory-owned dealerships. Last year, there were only 43 registered Teslas in the state.
In both Massachusetts and New York, legal efforts by franchise dealers to block Tesla's efforts were rejected — including attempts to shut down three Tesla stores and two service centers in New York.
Wrote New York Supreme Court Justice Raymond J. Elliott III: "Dealers cannot utilize the Franchised Dealer Act as a means to sue their competitors."
Source
|
On May 20 2013 06:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Protectionism is what drives American business not the free market: Show nested quote +A bill being considered in North Carolina, where there are currently 80 Teslas on the road and another 60 expected, would prevent the company from selling vehicles online. In Virginia, the state denied the company a dealer license to open a store.
Texas lawmakers are expected to ignore an effort by Tesla to gain an exception to strict franchise laws that prohibit factory-owned dealerships. Last year, there were only 43 registered Teslas in the state.
In both Massachusetts and New York, legal efforts by franchise dealers to block Tesla's efforts were rejected — including attempts to shut down three Tesla stores and two service centers in New York.
Wrote New York Supreme Court Justice Raymond J. Elliott III: "Dealers cannot utilize the Franchised Dealer Act as a means to sue their competitors." Source
US has for a long time now been about which company can buy the most politicians to stop there competition. Glad to see some states are slapping it down tho.
|
On May 20 2013 06:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Protectionism is what drives American business not the free market: Show nested quote +A bill being considered in North Carolina, where there are currently 80 Teslas on the road and another 60 expected, would prevent the company from selling vehicles online. In Virginia, the state denied the company a dealer license to open a store.
Texas lawmakers are expected to ignore an effort by Tesla to gain an exception to strict franchise laws that prohibit factory-owned dealerships. Last year, there were only 43 registered Teslas in the state.
In both Massachusetts and New York, legal efforts by franchise dealers to block Tesla's efforts were rejected — including attempts to shut down three Tesla stores and two service centers in New York.
Wrote New York Supreme Court Justice Raymond J. Elliott III: "Dealers cannot utilize the Franchised Dealer Act as a means to sue their competitors." Source
Hilarious. Republicans so uncomfortable with the fact that Tesla ended up successful that they want to use big government (lol) to defeat it. So many sweet delicious republican tears. I'm glad that this is getting more attention, as its a really shady dealing that a lot of people would be against if they were aware.
edit: Am I correct that a lot of the trouble republicans are giving Tesla the fact that its basically Obama's proof that government assistance can be very profitable and fruitful? There are so many other car companies that it wouldn't make sense for all other competition to be okay, and yet when its Tesla competing, its not acceptable. Especially given how few vehicles are even sold.
|
On May 20 2013 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 06:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Protectionism is what drives American business not the free market: A bill being considered in North Carolina, where there are currently 80 Teslas on the road and another 60 expected, would prevent the company from selling vehicles online. In Virginia, the state denied the company a dealer license to open a store.
Texas lawmakers are expected to ignore an effort by Tesla to gain an exception to strict franchise laws that prohibit factory-owned dealerships. Last year, there were only 43 registered Teslas in the state.
In both Massachusetts and New York, legal efforts by franchise dealers to block Tesla's efforts were rejected — including attempts to shut down three Tesla stores and two service centers in New York.
Wrote New York Supreme Court Justice Raymond J. Elliott III: "Dealers cannot utilize the Franchised Dealer Act as a means to sue their competitors." Source Hilarious. Republicans so uncomfortable with the fact that Tesla ended up successful that they want to use big government (lol) to defeat it. So many sweet delicious republican tears. I'm glad that this is getting more attention, as its a really shady dealing that a lot of people would be against if they were aware. edit: Am I correct that a lot of the trouble republicans are giving Tesla the fact that its basically Obama's proof that government assistance can be very profitable and fruitful? There are so many other car companies that it wouldn't make sense for all other competition to be okay, and yet when its Tesla competing, its not acceptable. Especially given how few vehicles are even sold.
This isn't really a partisan issue at all: it's a simple matter of protecting established business interests against newcomers, which is one of the few things both side of the aisle can agree on. It just happens to be a more hypocritical stance for Republicans since they espouse free market ideology more fervently than Democrats. There are other issues where the Republicans and Democrats are the opposite of what you might expect, such as Obama wanting to privatize the Tennessee Valley Authority, and Republicans being against it because the TVA really is a good thing for their constituents.
|
On May 20 2013 07:55 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On May 20 2013 06:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Protectionism is what drives American business not the free market: A bill being considered in North Carolina, where there are currently 80 Teslas on the road and another 60 expected, would prevent the company from selling vehicles online. In Virginia, the state denied the company a dealer license to open a store.
Texas lawmakers are expected to ignore an effort by Tesla to gain an exception to strict franchise laws that prohibit factory-owned dealerships. Last year, there were only 43 registered Teslas in the state.
In both Massachusetts and New York, legal efforts by franchise dealers to block Tesla's efforts were rejected — including attempts to shut down three Tesla stores and two service centers in New York.
Wrote New York Supreme Court Justice Raymond J. Elliott III: "Dealers cannot utilize the Franchised Dealer Act as a means to sue their competitors." Source Hilarious. Republicans so uncomfortable with the fact that Tesla ended up successful that they want to use big government (lol) to defeat it. So many sweet delicious republican tears. I'm glad that this is getting more attention, as its a really shady dealing that a lot of people would be against if they were aware. edit: Am I correct that a lot of the trouble republicans are giving Tesla the fact that its basically Obama's proof that government assistance can be very profitable and fruitful? There are so many other car companies that it wouldn't make sense for all other competition to be okay, and yet when its Tesla competing, its not acceptable. Especially given how few vehicles are even sold. This isn't really a partisan issue at all: it's a simple matter of protecting established business interests against newcomers, which is one of the few things both side of the aisle can agree on. It just happens to be a more hypocritical stance for Republicans since they espouse free market ideology more fervently than Democrats. There are other issues where the Republicans and Democrats are the opposite of what you might expect, such as Obama wanting to privatize the Tennessee Valley Authority, and Republicans being against it because the TVA really is a good thing for their constituents.
I hesitate to link this to any partisan ties, but there is a hint of that there. These states where Tesla is fighting the law are solid red states, and they have the power to get the law out of the way of a small business attempting to do business. I can't help to think that something partisan is involved, although I think it could be part of anti-environmentalism or anti-Obama-investments.
I need to review or hear somebody's opinion of the laws being used against Tesla to make a solid opinion though.
|
On May 20 2013 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 06:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Protectionism is what drives American business not the free market: A bill being considered in North Carolina, where there are currently 80 Teslas on the road and another 60 expected, would prevent the company from selling vehicles online. In Virginia, the state denied the company a dealer license to open a store.
Texas lawmakers are expected to ignore an effort by Tesla to gain an exception to strict franchise laws that prohibit factory-owned dealerships. Last year, there were only 43 registered Teslas in the state.
In both Massachusetts and New York, legal efforts by franchise dealers to block Tesla's efforts were rejected — including attempts to shut down three Tesla stores and two service centers in New York.
Wrote New York Supreme Court Justice Raymond J. Elliott III: "Dealers cannot utilize the Franchised Dealer Act as a means to sue their competitors." Source Hilarious. Republicans so uncomfortable with the fact that Tesla ended up successful that they want to use big government (lol) to defeat it. So many sweet delicious republican tears. I'm glad that this is getting more attention, as its a really shady dealing that a lot of people would be against if they were aware. edit: Am I correct that a lot of the trouble republicans are giving Tesla the fact that its basically Obama's proof that government assistance can be very profitable and fruitful? There are so many other car companies that it wouldn't make sense for all other competition to be okay, and yet when its Tesla competing, its not acceptable. Especially given how few vehicles are even sold.
Tesla sells electric cars so there's subsidies tied to that. For the company itself they received loans from the energy department but as far as I know they weren't anything beyond an interest rate subsidy - so helpful but not vital. Apparently the loan came from a Bush era program and it's being repaid early to prevent warrants tied to the loans from vesting (source).
As for the franchise laws I have no clue. They vary by state and changing them can be tricky. Protecting entrenched interests is generally bad but so is granting special exemptions to the law. It's a bit murky as to what's really going on here.
|
On May 20 2013 13:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On May 20 2013 06:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Protectionism is what drives American business not the free market: A bill being considered in North Carolina, where there are currently 80 Teslas on the road and another 60 expected, would prevent the company from selling vehicles online. In Virginia, the state denied the company a dealer license to open a store.
Texas lawmakers are expected to ignore an effort by Tesla to gain an exception to strict franchise laws that prohibit factory-owned dealerships. Last year, there were only 43 registered Teslas in the state.
In both Massachusetts and New York, legal efforts by franchise dealers to block Tesla's efforts were rejected — including attempts to shut down three Tesla stores and two service centers in New York.
Wrote New York Supreme Court Justice Raymond J. Elliott III: "Dealers cannot utilize the Franchised Dealer Act as a means to sue their competitors." Source Hilarious. Republicans so uncomfortable with the fact that Tesla ended up successful that they want to use big government (lol) to defeat it. So many sweet delicious republican tears. I'm glad that this is getting more attention, as its a really shady dealing that a lot of people would be against if they were aware. edit: Am I correct that a lot of the trouble republicans are giving Tesla the fact that its basically Obama's proof that government assistance can be very profitable and fruitful? There are so many other car companies that it wouldn't make sense for all other competition to be okay, and yet when its Tesla competing, its not acceptable. Especially given how few vehicles are even sold. Tesla sells electric cars so there's subsidies tied to that. For the company itself they received loans from the energy department but as far as I know they weren't anything beyond an interest rate subsidy - so helpful but not vital. Apparently the loan came from a Bush era program and it's being repaid early to prevent warrants tied to the loans from vesting ( source). As for the franchise laws I have no clue. They vary by state and changing them can be tricky. Protecting entrenched interests is generally bad but so is granting special exemptions to the law. It's a bit murky as to what's really going on here.
Got some time to look some of it up. Some excerpts from Tesla's site (there's more in the link):
Under the current Texas Occupations Code (TEX OC. CODE ANN. § 2301.476), Tesla is unable to sell its vehicles directly to the public because it has no franchised dealer relationships in Texas (or anywhere else in the U.S.). This regulation not only affects Sales, but also Service of Tesla vehicles for existing customers.
Sales
We currently operate two Tesla galleries in Houston and Austin. In an effort to comply with the current laws, employees at these galleries are prevented from discussing pricing and the reservation process. This includes any discussion on financing, leasing, or purchasing options. Also, galleries cannot offer test drives. The store’s interactive kiosks are also amended to remove pricing. Lastly, we are unable to refer the customer to another store out of state. This puts Tesla at a serious disadvantage and inhibits our ability to reduce misconceptions and educate people about Electric Vehicles and the technology. Furthermore, people are forced to leave the gallery frustrated, lacking sufficient information about the car and the brand.
Registration
Normally, vehicle registration is included in the final paperwork submitted to take ownership of the vehicle. Tesla completes the vehicle registration process for customers in other states. In Texas, customers must first take ownership of their vehicle and then register the vehicle themselves at the Texas DPS. At this time, customers pay Texas Registration and Titling Fees – but most importantly, Texas Sales Tax. Because this process occurs after the sales transaction, many Tesla customers have reported their inability to fold the sales tax cost into the total cost of the vehicle for financing purposes. In some cases, customers have to pay more than $5,000 out of pocket that they otherwise could have paid over years of financing. This isn’t fair to Texas Tesla Customers.
Source
Texas Law
From a brief overview of the actual writing, it looks like dealerships must be franchise owned, not manufacturer/distributor owned, and they go through great lengths to prevent the manufacturer/distributor from having direct access to the customer. I don't even know how this crap was passed in my state.
|
On May 20 2013 14:26 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 13:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 20 2013 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On May 20 2013 06:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Protectionism is what drives American business not the free market: A bill being considered in North Carolina, where there are currently 80 Teslas on the road and another 60 expected, would prevent the company from selling vehicles online. In Virginia, the state denied the company a dealer license to open a store.
Texas lawmakers are expected to ignore an effort by Tesla to gain an exception to strict franchise laws that prohibit factory-owned dealerships. Last year, there were only 43 registered Teslas in the state.
In both Massachusetts and New York, legal efforts by franchise dealers to block Tesla's efforts were rejected — including attempts to shut down three Tesla stores and two service centers in New York.
Wrote New York Supreme Court Justice Raymond J. Elliott III: "Dealers cannot utilize the Franchised Dealer Act as a means to sue their competitors." Source Hilarious. Republicans so uncomfortable with the fact that Tesla ended up successful that they want to use big government (lol) to defeat it. So many sweet delicious republican tears. I'm glad that this is getting more attention, as its a really shady dealing that a lot of people would be against if they were aware. edit: Am I correct that a lot of the trouble republicans are giving Tesla the fact that its basically Obama's proof that government assistance can be very profitable and fruitful? There are so many other car companies that it wouldn't make sense for all other competition to be okay, and yet when its Tesla competing, its not acceptable. Especially given how few vehicles are even sold. Tesla sells electric cars so there's subsidies tied to that. For the company itself they received loans from the energy department but as far as I know they weren't anything beyond an interest rate subsidy - so helpful but not vital. Apparently the loan came from a Bush era program and it's being repaid early to prevent warrants tied to the loans from vesting ( source). As for the franchise laws I have no clue. They vary by state and changing them can be tricky. Protecting entrenched interests is generally bad but so is granting special exemptions to the law. It's a bit murky as to what's really going on here. Got some time to look some of it up. Some excerpts from Tesla's site (there's more in the link): Show nested quote +Under the current Texas Occupations Code (TEX OC. CODE ANN. § 2301.476), Tesla is unable to sell its vehicles directly to the public because it has no franchised dealer relationships in Texas (or anywhere else in the U.S.). This regulation not only affects Sales, but also Service of Tesla vehicles for existing customers.
Sales
We currently operate two Tesla galleries in Houston and Austin. In an effort to comply with the current laws, employees at these galleries are prevented from discussing pricing and the reservation process. This includes any discussion on financing, leasing, or purchasing options. Also, galleries cannot offer test drives. The store’s interactive kiosks are also amended to remove pricing. Lastly, we are unable to refer the customer to another store out of state. This puts Tesla at a serious disadvantage and inhibits our ability to reduce misconceptions and educate people about Electric Vehicles and the technology. Furthermore, people are forced to leave the gallery frustrated, lacking sufficient information about the car and the brand.
Registration
Normally, vehicle registration is included in the final paperwork submitted to take ownership of the vehicle. Tesla completes the vehicle registration process for customers in other states. In Texas, customers must first take ownership of their vehicle and then register the vehicle themselves at the Texas DPS. At this time, customers pay Texas Registration and Titling Fees – but most importantly, Texas Sales Tax. Because this process occurs after the sales transaction, many Tesla customers have reported their inability to fold the sales tax cost into the total cost of the vehicle for financing purposes. In some cases, customers have to pay more than $5,000 out of pocket that they otherwise could have paid over years of financing. This isn’t fair to Texas Tesla Customers. SourceTexas LawFrom a brief overview of the actual writing, it looks like dealerships must be franchise owned, not manufacturer/distributor owned, and they go through great lengths to prevent the manufacturer/distributor from having direct access to the customer. I don't even know how this crap was passed in my state.
That's the same situation in most (if not all states). The laws were put in place to end unfair practices between manufacturers and dealers. One of the key questions with Tesla is; since Tesla doesn't have any franchises, should it be exempt from the franchise laws? (source)
I'd say yes. But really it depends on how the laws are worded, how the courts interpret them, if the legislatures change them, etc. I'd expect Tesla to ultimately win the fight (one way or another).
|
The socialist revolution that will change this world will happen in the US. someday when these people, who so strongly believe in freedom and liberty, will realize they've been alienated from their very liberty and freedom, things will crash so hard, but so hard. Eye of the moon justu, Obito succeeded.
On May 20 2013 00:19 SayGen wrote:
Limited government is best government, the more capital in the hands of the people (IE not taken away via taxes and BS rules and regulations or gov stimulated inflation) the more opportunity for social movement (IE: The capability behind the concept of the American Dream).
A tax of any kind, regardless of nomenclature is a hindrance to growth. I refer to Milton Freidman who explains this with a far superior articulation than I ever could.
If you support ANY kind of government spending that isn't useful to the whole, I am against you.
Fire, Police, medical response, Military, etc help everyone.
Phones for illegal immigrants--- not so much.
And yet countries with far more redistribution have better social mobility. Reality disagrees with your ideology
Touché !!!! What we there needs to be is a real debate - on the basis, on ideology Else, we get lost in "case to case" scenarios, laws, states laws and such that DO matter at the end, but that don't solve anything without a deeper look.
People often bring up research on x and y topics to support their arguments. post-modernist would tell them that science is just another ideology, because nowadays researches are commended by interest groups. government, oligarch (food oligarch is best example), lobbies etc.
So basically any facts brought up relates to a certain ideology and can be valid or invalid. although the truth is facts exist, historical facts exist even though our selection of history is biased. WE MUST then oppose paradigms and discuss them, other wise any discussion is pointless if everybody stays camped in his paradigm.
|
On May 20 2013 23:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 14:26 aksfjh wrote:On May 20 2013 13:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 20 2013 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On May 20 2013 06:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Protectionism is what drives American business not the free market: A bill being considered in North Carolina, where there are currently 80 Teslas on the road and another 60 expected, would prevent the company from selling vehicles online. In Virginia, the state denied the company a dealer license to open a store.
Texas lawmakers are expected to ignore an effort by Tesla to gain an exception to strict franchise laws that prohibit factory-owned dealerships. Last year, there were only 43 registered Teslas in the state.
In both Massachusetts and New York, legal efforts by franchise dealers to block Tesla's efforts were rejected — including attempts to shut down three Tesla stores and two service centers in New York.
Wrote New York Supreme Court Justice Raymond J. Elliott III: "Dealers cannot utilize the Franchised Dealer Act as a means to sue their competitors." Source Hilarious. Republicans so uncomfortable with the fact that Tesla ended up successful that they want to use big government (lol) to defeat it. So many sweet delicious republican tears. I'm glad that this is getting more attention, as its a really shady dealing that a lot of people would be against if they were aware. edit: Am I correct that a lot of the trouble republicans are giving Tesla the fact that its basically Obama's proof that government assistance can be very profitable and fruitful? There are so many other car companies that it wouldn't make sense for all other competition to be okay, and yet when its Tesla competing, its not acceptable. Especially given how few vehicles are even sold. Tesla sells electric cars so there's subsidies tied to that. For the company itself they received loans from the energy department but as far as I know they weren't anything beyond an interest rate subsidy - so helpful but not vital. Apparently the loan came from a Bush era program and it's being repaid early to prevent warrants tied to the loans from vesting ( source). As for the franchise laws I have no clue. They vary by state and changing them can be tricky. Protecting entrenched interests is generally bad but so is granting special exemptions to the law. It's a bit murky as to what's really going on here. Got some time to look some of it up. Some excerpts from Tesla's site (there's more in the link): Under the current Texas Occupations Code (TEX OC. CODE ANN. § 2301.476), Tesla is unable to sell its vehicles directly to the public because it has no franchised dealer relationships in Texas (or anywhere else in the U.S.). This regulation not only affects Sales, but also Service of Tesla vehicles for existing customers.
Sales
We currently operate two Tesla galleries in Houston and Austin. In an effort to comply with the current laws, employees at these galleries are prevented from discussing pricing and the reservation process. This includes any discussion on financing, leasing, or purchasing options. Also, galleries cannot offer test drives. The store’s interactive kiosks are also amended to remove pricing. Lastly, we are unable to refer the customer to another store out of state. This puts Tesla at a serious disadvantage and inhibits our ability to reduce misconceptions and educate people about Electric Vehicles and the technology. Furthermore, people are forced to leave the gallery frustrated, lacking sufficient information about the car and the brand.
Registration
Normally, vehicle registration is included in the final paperwork submitted to take ownership of the vehicle. Tesla completes the vehicle registration process for customers in other states. In Texas, customers must first take ownership of their vehicle and then register the vehicle themselves at the Texas DPS. At this time, customers pay Texas Registration and Titling Fees – but most importantly, Texas Sales Tax. Because this process occurs after the sales transaction, many Tesla customers have reported their inability to fold the sales tax cost into the total cost of the vehicle for financing purposes. In some cases, customers have to pay more than $5,000 out of pocket that they otherwise could have paid over years of financing. This isn’t fair to Texas Tesla Customers. SourceTexas LawFrom a brief overview of the actual writing, it looks like dealerships must be franchise owned, not manufacturer/distributor owned, and they go through great lengths to prevent the manufacturer/distributor from having direct access to the customer. I don't even know how this crap was passed in my state. That's the same situation in most (if not all states). The laws were put in place to end unfair practices between manufacturers and dealers. One of the key questions with Tesla is; since Tesla doesn't have any franchises, should it be exempt from the franchise laws? ( source) I'd say yes. But really it depends on how the laws are worded, how the courts interpret them, if the legislatures change them, etc. I'd expect Tesla to ultimately win the fight (one way or another).
Kickstarter' a franchise, TL goes corporate entity. Eve style 
|
Everywhere, entrenched business will try to lobby their government to protect their interests. Many will also lobby the government to make laws seeking to protect their profits, sometimes in the name of keeping jobs at home, and hurt their competitors. A lot of this falls under the heading of "crony capitalism," which is a subversion of true capitalism. The businesses cozy up a government with the power and willingness to heavily tinker with the market to reap profits in one form or another. It's not that protectionist policies drive the US markets, it's that most markets do their work despite those policies, and some are damaged because of them.
New York did it with Uber cab, GM did it with the bailout, it occurs with multitudes of targeted tax credits and subsidies on everything from farms to energy. The free market is burdened by the waste and other ill effects that result, but it is still the free market that drives American business on the whole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
8756
2959
411
246
EPT
