Uber Forced Out of Kansas

mpicpp sends news that Uber has been forced to leave Kansas. The company says a bill pushed through the state legislature (SB117) makes it impossible for the company to operate there. The bill had been vetoed by Kansas governor Sam Brownback, but lawmakers secured enough votes to override it. "The measure requires drivers for ride-hailing companies to undergo background checks through the Kansas Bureau of Investigation and hold additional auto insurance coverage for the period in which they have turned on the mobile app that connects them to riders."

Comments

Re:Comparison with existing taxi laws?

[Mashiki]

I can't say about Kansas but in my neck of the woods here in Canada(ontario), those are standard requirements. Though here you're also required to have a chauffeur's liscence as well as insurance to cover any injuries that parties may receive while you're a driver. So to me, it's completely reasonable to have the same requirements, if you don't want to pay for that then don't. But sure don't whine when the MTO, DOT, or whoever starts slapping you with so many fines that you're up to your asshole in debt because of it.

I cannot prove it, but I can say it?

[luis_a_espinal]

Well, that and it's a negotiating position where they figure Kansas will cave.

Why should Kansas cave?

Re: Good

[dunkelfalke]

That didn't work in EU so they became an actual bank in Luxembourg.

Re:Sounds completely reasonable

[causality]

There aren't any taxi token requirements or anything unreasonable. Can't wait to see what the usual Uber shills have to say about why they can't abide by a couple basic rules.

I've no doubt a few libertarians will chime in how it's intolerable government interference to require car insurance.

I'm a little-'l' libertarian and I think simple, reasonable, easily-understood regulations like this are not only perfectly acceptable, but highly desirable. As a libertarian I want minimal government. A government that does not provide reasonable regulations is less than minimal and therefore a failure. Minimal is "greater than nothing", you see, and something greater than nothing but still less than minimal is ... still a failure. I can't break it down any more simply than that.

I've never actually met or corresponded with an anarcho-capitalist who called themselves a "libertarian" (which is what you and so many others are ignorantly assuming to be representative of libertarian thought), though I have corresponded with multiple anarcho-capitalists who called themselves "anarchists" or "anarcho-capitalists". Their ideas were interesting to be sure, but just like communism, seemed designed for a species other than our own. That's why I don't count myself among them.

The problem here is that your standard "progressive" and "conservative" political schools of thought have millions of members and powerful parties backing them. That means they have great PR. Both would be quite threatened if reasonable libertarian thought really caught on. It's not exactly shocking that reasonable libertarian thought is seldom portrayed, except by individuals like me. Of course it will be distorted, misrepresented, and shown in only its most extreme and unworkable forms, until the average person finds it distasteful like an automatic reflex. Like I said, it's called PR, and it's quite common in politics. It only works because it depends on your ignorance.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[rjstanford]

Its also worth remembering that we tried unregulated taxis - in fact, that model has been tried many times all over the world, and every time its tried it doesn't work very well and we end up approximately where we are today. Tossing those gains away after so many failed attempts should require a fairly substantial set of claims that those problems won't just pop up again (especially when early feedback on things like surge pricing and destination-based fair refusal shows that they're far from gone).