So, basically you linked me to a wikipedia article which says that there are lots of different ways to determine what is right and what is wrong, so feel free to do whatever it is you think is right. Are you aware that many of those who carried out the atrocities of the 20th Century thought they were doing right?

What makes that more right than maximizing my own happiness? More importantly, I can justify a lot of evil in the name of "maximizing human happiness".

Perhaps you missed a key word in that passage, even though it is repeated twice. That word is "earth". When interpreted in light of other similar passages, it clearly is stating that man has been given dominion over life on this planet. Until such a time as man has the ability to get to other planets with life of their own, there is no basis for claiming that God gave man dominion over that life.

Please define "doing right" in a universe that does not have a god.

That's interesting because repeated polling has shown that belief in UFOs, alien abductions, bigfoot, etc is much more prevalent among self-identified agnostics and atheists than among self-identified Christians (I have not seen the data for those identifying with other religions).

Apparently you have not read the articles from various states about politicians who have proposed introducing a mileage tax...and "oh yeah, we will do this by requiring everyone to install a GPS monitor in their cars."

The politicians are already salivating at the thought of using EVs as an excuse to track our cars all of the time, all in the name of taxing us based on miles driven. It is a bogus argument anyway since cars already have a thing called an odometer that would allow the government to tax based on miles driven.

You keep quoting most of that sentence while leaving out the key part that comes at the end ""...Tesla was acting as a dealer, Steier said." It does not matter how many times nor in how many articles the opinion of Paul Steier is quoted, it does not change the fact that the law does not actually say that. You appear to be basing your argument on, "They published it in the newspaper. It must be true."
I will try one more time. The article links to the relevant law. You can read that law for yourself. I did. The relevant law says that in order to sell automobiles at retail in Iowa someone must be a licensed dealer. It does not say that in order to "act as a dealer" one must be licensed. It says that in order to sell one must be licensed. So, the wording of the law does not say that someone must be licensed as a dealer in order to conduct test drives anymore than someone must be licensed as a dealer to make repairs on a car. Dealers do that as well, so that you could say "State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and by offering to repair cars, the local mechanic was acting as a dealer." It still would not mean there was a legal requirement to be licensed as an auto dealer in order to repair cars, no matter how many times someone from the DOT said it. Read the law, it does not say what the DOT spokesman said.

That statement is the OPINION of the DOT. There is NO place in the law which states that offering test drives makes one an auto dealer. In fact, the law states that selling cars retail makes one an auto dealer. Tesla was not selling cars retail in the state.
The article could say this: "State law requires pharmacists to be licensed, and by giving George aspirin, Henry was acting as a pharmacist," but that would not necessarily make it true (even if that statement was made by a state official).

But the law never states that you must be a dealer to offer test drives. The law says that you must be a dealer to sell cars retail. The law does not say that a manufacturer may not offer test drives. So, to recap, the DOT has ruled that only licensed auto dealers may offer test drives. However, the state law does not say that it says that only licensed auto dealers may sell autos at retail.
Now I understand that progressives think that bureaucrats should be allowed to make the law say whatever they think is should say, but that is not how our system is supposed to work. There does exist an argument that supports the position taken by the DOT. However, until that argument is made in front of a theoretically impartial third party known as a judge and Tesla is allowed to make their counter-arguments it is not accurate to describe what Tesla was doing as illegal, since it does not violate the letter of the law.

Actually, that is not anywhere in the law. As I said, I read the law. The law explicitly states that in order to sell cars retail, someone must be licensed by the DOT. That sentence you quoted is the interpretation of the DOT, NOT something written in the law.

Where does the law say that they cannot offer test drives? I actually READ the law. It says that they cannot sell automobiles retail. It says nothing about test drives.

Well, his original post was that it should be illegal to use drinking water to flush toilets. I think that Barsteward just wants to force other people to live the way HE thinks they should, without actually knowing anything about the conditions which apply where they live.

First of all, my friend did NOT have a copy of the ordinance, he merely was aware of what the ordnance said. Second, Steier said that Tesla was acting as a dealer. The law at no place says that offering test drives makes one a dealer. It does not even say that offering test drives is illegal. Just because Steier says that it is illegal does NOT mean that it is illegal. It may be that a judge will agree with Steier, but until that happens it is not accurate to say that Tesla was doing something illegal. As a a matter of fact, I read the two laws and do not see any place in them where test drives are mentioned. You strike me as one of those people that believes that since the FCC is the Federal Communication Commission they have authority to regulate all forms of communication, even if Congress has passed no law giving them such authority. In this case, while the DOT has the authority to regulate automobile dealers, the law defines automobile dealers as those who offer automobiles for sale in the state. Tesla was not offering the cars for sale. They were merely offering test drives. The law does not specify that you must be a licensed dealer to offer test drives. The law specifies that you must be a licensed dealer in order to sell at retail automobiles. Whether or not Tesla was doing something illegal is up to a judge to decide, NOT up to the head of the DOT. Especially not when the law so clearly does not state that it was illegal. The only thing which dealers do which the law states that automobile manufacturers are not allowed to do is sell cars at retail in Iowa.

As the anonymous coward pointed out, most states(I believe that it is all states, but there may be exceptions) require you to pay their sales tax on a car to register it in that state. There are special exceptions if you have owned the car long enough before moving to the state in question (I believe that is typically a year, but I have not looked at that clause for some time).