You appear to be under the impression that in this day and age, journalism and exposure can do a thing to dissuade these companies. As a counterargument, I offer... oh, I dunno... maybe every single thing that we found out the oil industry has done since the invention of the Internet?
It is more of a quality issue. Most of what regulation does is raise the minimum requirements for a market.
Thank you!
I don't understand why so many people don't understand this very simple point. Libertarians love to complain about how regulations make things more expensive to produce, as if all the money was just vanishing into a black hole somewhere. As if they're completely ignorant of basic economics, and how producing a higher quality product (which regulations enforce, by setting a minimum bar) is generally more expensive. (And if they're not completely ignorant, then they do know this, and are deliberately looking for ways to get away with producing a poor-quality product. Either way, it's a harmful ideology.)
Sounds like a heaping helping of Special Pleading fallacy to me. Why would human nature be so radically different for "more personal services" that would cause the clear pattern we've seen with WalMart and airlines to not hold true in this specific case?
2) So long as a person has the appropriate insurance, why should they be banned from making money with their own property to earn some extra money.
Because one of the most fundamental rules of civilization is that you can't just do whatever you want just because you can. The pro-Uber folks, either out of ignorance or straight-up maliciousness, keep trying to paint this as some sort of David and Goliath story about an evil, oppressive "guild" shutting down competition.
The reality is that taxi driver certifications are very important. If you're going to get in a cab, you have to be able to trust that the person behind the wheel is competent (not going to get you killed) and trustworthy (not going to rob, kidnap, murder, or simply swindle you). Think about the amount of trust you're extending, placing your life and safety in the driver's hands by getting into a cab. Certification provides a time-honored, well-understood way of demonstrating that that trust is warranted.
Yes, it's expensive; most things of great value in life are. And so when a bunch of gypsy cab operators start breaking all the relevant laws and undercutting the legitimate taxi drivers, and then completely unsurprisingly causing harm all over (privacy violations, price gouging, maliciously interfering with competitors by calling for fake rides, etc,) why is anyone surprised that people don't like it?
...oh yeah. Because they've been fed a line of crap about how it's about noble rebels fighting the Evil Empire of the "guild system", and they believed it.
Precisely. I don't understand why someone as intelligent as Mike keeps on making this same mistake over and over, acting as if people have a problem with Uber competing with taxi companies and disrupting their monopolies. What people have a problem with is them acting as if they were run by an Objectivist, (most likely because they are!) flouting the law at every opportunity, trampling on the rights of everyone who's not Uber, harming their workers and their customers, and yet somehow playing the media skillfully enough that most people never find out about all the crap they pull and they somehow come out looking like good guys.
That's what the people who don't like them don't like.
...and do you know what happens to people who engage in acts of civil disobedience by breaking the law? They very frequently end up getting arrested or having other punishments meted out upon their heads, as befits people who break the law.
People who choose to engage in civil disobedience know this, and they do so with their eyes wide open, betting that they'll be vindicated by the court of public opinion and come out ahead in the long run. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
To try to make the claim that someone should be able to get away with blatantly flouting the law, whether or not you believe it's a form of noble "civil disobedience", without any legal consequences, is pure fantasy.
The French bureaucrats are now telling law enforcement to seize cars from Uber drivers. Really.
Yes, really. That's what happens when you make a habit of flouting the law: the law eventually decides enough is enough.
If you don't like the law, the appropriate thing to do in a democratic society is to work to get the law changed. Instead, like the barbarians who run the company, Uber has been thumbing its nose at the law and saying "Nyah, nyah! So what are you going to do about it?"
Well... this is what. It's about time, and I really hope the USA follows their example.
Well, it's not like we needed further evidence that libertarianism is an idiotic and barbaric ideology, (in the most literal sense of the word; they are anti-civilization,) but there's some anyway.
Exactly. That's what I thought when I saw this: "They're not going to violate this seven ways from Sunday before the ink's even dry? I'll believe it when I don't see it."
Re: Re: Let's ban the skull and crossbones from the stores
Nuclear war? Better ban Mario, then. All those mushrooms that make him expand in size are obviously secret references to mushroom clouds, that keep expanding and getting bigger and bigger until they've devastated an entire city...
And if only everyone was as level-headed as yourself about it, the world would be a better place. But attitudes like this do exist, and there's a reason why the TVTropes page about it is titled "Still Fighting The Civil War".
Sure, most people can study AT&T and Verizon's behavior over the last thirty years and conclude that yes, this sort of thing would certainly be in their jackassery wheelhouse, but proving it is kind of important if you want these kinds of claims to be taken seriously.
At what point do these studies provide enough evidence to surpass whatever burden of "reasonable doubt" or similar is required to give them standing to initiate legal action, at which point these secrets-that-should-not-be-secret can be exposed during the process of discovery?
Re: How DO he do it? Every Geigner post digs a new low in relevance!
Meh. This one's actually pretty relevant and on-theme. It's about people abusing an automated system and abusing the DMCA, which is the sort of stuff Techdirt is at its best covering.
Look, I'm the last person who wants to go around offending the sensibilities of the great nation-planet of Essassani. After all, we may need their military assistance to fight against The Reapers years in the future once we've attained intergalactic travel and all that.
Well, at least we're only infringing their copyright. If we were to rename their star, their wrath would know no bounds!
On the post: France Gives In To Insanity And Rioting Taxi Drivers: Cracks Down On Uber
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: enough is enough
On the post: France Gives In To Insanity And Rioting Taxi Drivers: Cracks Down On Uber
Re: Re: Re:
Thank you!
I don't understand why so many people don't understand this very simple point. Libertarians love to complain about how regulations make things more expensive to produce, as if all the money was just vanishing into a black hole somewhere. As if they're completely ignorant of basic economics, and how producing a higher quality product (which regulations enforce, by setting a minimum bar) is generally more expensive. (And if they're not completely ignorant, then they do know this, and are deliberately looking for ways to get away with producing a poor-quality product. Either way, it's a harmful ideology.)
On the post: France Gives In To Insanity And Rioting Taxi Drivers: Cracks Down On Uber
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: France Gives In To Insanity And Rioting Taxi Drivers: Cracks Down On Uber
Re: Re:
Because one of the most fundamental rules of civilization is that you can't just do whatever you want just because you can. The pro-Uber folks, either out of ignorance or straight-up maliciousness, keep trying to paint this as some sort of David and Goliath story about an evil, oppressive "guild" shutting down competition.
The reality is that taxi driver certifications are very important. If you're going to get in a cab, you have to be able to trust that the person behind the wheel is competent (not going to get you killed) and trustworthy (not going to rob, kidnap, murder, or simply swindle you). Think about the amount of trust you're extending, placing your life and safety in the driver's hands by getting into a cab. Certification provides a time-honored, well-understood way of demonstrating that that trust is warranted.
Yes, it's expensive; most things of great value in life are. And so when a bunch of gypsy cab operators start breaking all the relevant laws and undercutting the legitimate taxi drivers, and then completely unsurprisingly causing harm all over (privacy violations, price gouging, maliciously interfering with competitors by calling for fake rides, etc,) why is anyone surprised that people don't like it?
...oh yeah. Because they've been fed a line of crap about how it's about noble rebels fighting the Evil Empire of the "guild system", and they believed it.
On the post: France Gives In To Insanity And Rioting Taxi Drivers: Cracks Down On Uber
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: enough is enough
That's what the people who don't like them don't like.
On the post: France Gives In To Insanity And Rioting Taxi Drivers: Cracks Down On Uber
Re: Re: enough is enough
People who choose to engage in civil disobedience know this, and they do so with their eyes wide open, betting that they'll be vindicated by the court of public opinion and come out ahead in the long run. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
To try to make the claim that someone should be able to get away with blatantly flouting the law, whether or not you believe it's a form of noble "civil disobedience", without any legal consequences, is pure fantasy.
On the post: France Gives In To Insanity And Rioting Taxi Drivers: Cracks Down On Uber
Yes, really. That's what happens when you make a habit of flouting the law: the law eventually decides enough is enough.
If you don't like the law, the appropriate thing to do in a democratic society is to work to get the law changed. Instead, like the barbarians who run the company, Uber has been thumbing its nose at the law and saying "Nyah, nyah! So what are you going to do about it?"
Well... this is what. It's about time, and I really hope the USA follows their example.
On the post: South Carolina Massacre Results In Apple Going Flag-Stupid In The App Store
Re: Re:
On the post: Charter Hires Leading Net Neutrality Advocate To Write Its Net Neutrality Commitments, Promises To Go Further Than FCC Rules
Re:
On the post: South Carolina Massacre Results In Apple Going Flag-Stupid In The App Store
Re: Re: Let's ban the skull and crossbones from the stores
On the post: South Carolina Massacre Results In Apple Going Flag-Stupid In The App Store
Re: Re: From the "lets up the ante" party
I knew a guy who was from Georgia. He was not happy when people called him that!
On the post: South Carolina Massacre Results In Apple Going Flag-Stupid In The App Store
Re:
On the post: South Carolina Massacre Results In Apple Going Flag-Stupid In The App Store
Argh! H is not a vowel! Why do people keep saying this? It gives me an heavy heart every time I see such an horrible mangling of our language.
On the post: Researcher Headed To Australian Supreme Court In Attempt To Hold Google Responsible For Posts At Ripoff Reports [Updated]
I just have to wonder. Any relation to Paul?
On the post: No, We Still Can't Definitively Prove Your ISP Is Slowing Netflix Traffic To Make An Extra Buck
At what point do these studies provide enough evidence to surpass whatever burden of "reasonable doubt" or similar is required to give them standing to initiate legal action, at which point these secrets-that-should-not-be-secret can be exposed during the process of discovery?
On the post: Fast Track Moves Forward And Now The Fight Is On TPP Directly
Are you really? It's Barack Obama. He's as big a liar as all the recent presidents have been; why expect him to tell the truth about this?!?
On the post: Tumblr Complies With DMCA Takedown Requests From A Self-Proclaimed Future-Alien From Another Planet
Re: How DO he do it? Every Geigner post digs a new low in relevance!
On the post: Taylor Swift Is Not The Savior Artists Need
Re: Taylor Swift, nice but inconsiquential argument
The programmer in me is highly amused by this for reasons that most music fans are probably not aware of. :P
On the post: Taylor Swift Is Not The Savior Artists Need
Re:
On the post: Tumblr Complies With DMCA Takedown Requests From A Self-Proclaimed Future-Alien From Another Planet
Well, at least we're only infringing their copyright. If we were to rename their star, their wrath would know no bounds!
Next >>