Ok, so if dealerships provide a valuable service, then why are they so worried about allowing manufacturers to sell directly?
If those things you identified are truly important, then manufacturers will end up paying for them one way or the other (i.e., directly or by allowing dealerships to take a cut of car sales). If dealerships are an efficient way of providing those services, then why in the world would manufacturers abandon this existing network of service providers?
Now, maybe it is the case that the current dealership model is the best way to deliver those services to customers. Maybe having factory-owned service centers leads to poor customer service. But won't the market figure that out?
> I'm not in love with dealers, but it's frustrating to see people writing off the whole notion altogether, pretending they will be better off if the only access to Tesla is a mail-order catalogue.
This is an interesting straw-man. In normal states, Tesla is allowed to set up fixed-location service centers and "car stores" in malls. Potential customers can take cars on test drives and a salesperson walks the customer through the purchase process. Even in Texas, Tesla has showrooms and a limited ability to set up mass test-drive dates. What Tesla is trying to do (but being prevented from doing by silly laws) is make sure that customers don't "only access to Tesla is a mail-order catalogue."
I don't understand why it should be illegal for the manufacturer to provide the services you listed, except through a third party. Nobody is suggesting that a car manufacturer shouldn't be allowed to have a network of third-party dealers, just that car manufacturers should be allowed the option of running sales and service directly.