Slashdot Mirror
Over 30 Uber Cars Impounded In Cape Town
An anonymous reader writes Uber's in trouble again: 34 drivers in Cape Town, South Africa have had their cars impounded after being caught driving without a metered taxi permit. Uber says that the process of getting permits is subject to delays and drivers have been left in limbo due to a moratorium on new licenses last year. Cape Town says that it's been clear all along about what Uber drivers need to operate in the city and it's making no exceptions. Uber first arrived in Cape Town in 2013.
While your faith in the religion of liberretardianism sounds fun, history empirically proves you 100% wrong.
There's all kinds of services people can offer without pesky government interference! Meal sharing could be the next killer app. Why pay restaurant prices when you can just search for a family with an extra chair at their dinner table?
It's like when your furnace goes out and you find some self-proclaimed handyman on Craigslist to fix it. Licensed, bonded, insured? Hah, those are just extra costs that would be passed on to you. You're saving a bundle and carbon monoxide poisoning is probably just some B.S. made up by those government brown nosing "legit" guys who charge higher prices!
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
How about just giving Uber a large kick in the behind.
These guys seem to be intentionally breaking laws continuously.
At some point they can only be labeled as a criminal organisation.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
The fun thing here is that it is not Uber that got in trouble, but their drivers. Which aren't their employees, btw. Uber just looses a bit of revenues. The drivers, though, which own the cars, now have real problems.
That's the real innovative thing in Uber. They have found a way of shielding themselves from any problems. It really is genius, albeit evil genius.
Surge pricing has an interesting dark side that I see nobody talk about: cars are often too cheap for the service to be sustainable, in the sense that the money does not even cover the running costs of the cars when considering wear and loss of value on purchase price. Since noticing this implies a complex calculation as well as the mental makeup to take such calculations seriously, most drivers just don't notice. They are literally loosing money. Uber, however, always makes money.
It really is genius.
So common, so obvious, yet you don't list any.
1. "So, you are black? Hell no I will drive you."
2. "So, you want to go somewhere where I'm not guaranteed a return fare? Hell no I will drive you."
3. "So, you are gay? Hell no I will drive you."
4. "So, you are Muslim? Hell no I will drive you."
5. "So, you are not from my country? Hell no I will drive you."
And so on.
There is no real reason for taxi regs these days beyond safety regs, which apply to all vehicles.
Again: this right here is the source of your ignorance.
You simply do not know what you are talking about.
There are real and concreate reasons for the regulation of taxis.
Your ignorance of that history is not a reason to dismantle those regulations.
But you can try if you want...you'll simply learn first hand why they existed in the first place.
Which is ultimately the end consequence of libertarianism: if it actually succeeds and is implemented, it will necessarily be abandoned as its followers slowly learn firsthand why we did things the way we did, a lesson they could have avoided if they had simply learned some history. When we talk about those who dont learn history being doomed to repeat it, libertarians are a prime example.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.