Slashdot Mirror
Uber Sues City of Seattle To Block Landmark Driver Union Ordinance (geekwire.com)
Seattle's landmark law that lets drivers for ride-hailing companies decide if they want to bargain collectively was set to go into effect today, but an Uber subsidiary has sued to block key rules of the ordinance governing which drivers get to vote on unionization and other key rules. From a report: Uber subsidiary Rasier filed a petition in King County Superior Court Tuesday to block recently-published rules from Seattle's department of Finance and Administrative Services that cover issues like which drivers get a say in whether they want to unionize, working conditions subject to bargaining and how an organization gets certified to represent drivers exclusively. In court documents, Uber called the city's process flawed and asked the court to suspend the new rules. Uber wants the city to go back and tweak the rules so that they better reflect driver conditions in the ride-hailing industry. "The City failed to provide comprehensive rules and disregarded the facts and circumstances of drivers and the industry," according to Uber's petition. "Moreover, the Cityâ(TM)s rules are inconsistent with fundamental labor law principles ensuring every worker has a voice in whether to be represented by a labor organization."
How Republican of them.
You don't usually win fighting city hall...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
If I were building a giant fleet of autonomous robot cars, guess which markets I would absolutely flood with them as soon as they were ready? Any markets that tried to block my human driver efforts today... after all Uber is already making lots of money from the cities where they are allowed to operate, so the quickest expansion in the future is through the most resistant places today.
If Uber really wanted to, they could absolutely destroy the entire taxi market of a handful of cities with a targeted deployment of many more vehicles than were required to meet passenger demand, and with no human to have to pay they could undercut taxis even more than they do already (in my experience Uber is usually 50% cheaper than a taxi for the same ride in most cities).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And should be eliminated from everyday use.
Why do I have to chose between 128KB ISDN and my medication?
Hey, welcome to the taxi business.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Due by it. Every single one of your drivers has Internet access. Seems trivial to organize them. Unless you can use your size to bully them, I suppose....
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Then just be a matchmaking service that simply takes a cut. Don't require minimum monthy fare requirements. Don't require certain cars to be used. Don't dictate who they want to pick up, or where they should go to.
How Democrat, and how terribly 19th century of you.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There will be one Uber union worker to put the car in gear while another union worker supervises. The union worker who steers the car will be entitled to 20 minute breaks every 45 minutes. The union worker who presses the brake and gas pedals will only be allowed to work on certain 'certified' models of cars. And all 4 of them will retire on full benefits after 10 years.
Keep that in mind. Unions in such states are pretty much greedy monopolies, extracting dues whether the workers want them to or not, and then using the dues to buy political influence. Reminds me of corporations but without stockholders.
Unions: "That's a nice job you've got. Be a shame if anything happens to it."
Taxis still have designated taxi pickup points all over the city (and especially airports) at which they are just handed business.
The Uber driver has no such location, having to park somewhere close to where potential business may be, often taking minutes to get somewhere a taxi would just be hanging out at.
In terms of employees taxi companies are highly exploitive of workers, vastly more so than Uber. Uber drivers can choose where and when they want to work with complete freedom. How is that not giving an inherent advantage to taxi companies that can order drivers to service unpopular locations?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
We took on the WTO and we won.
Bears of little brain.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Uber is losing money
The fact that they are losing money overall says nothing about them MAKING money in any one area to begin with. It simply means they have more overhead still. I said nothing about profit.
In any case it doesn't change my main point at all. In fact it makes the point stronger, in Ubers desire to turn a profit they will want to grow as fast as possible with cars that have as little overhead as possible. They can grow much faster by pushing automated cars into a market they aren't allowed to operate in today than by adding such cars to existing cities where they would be competing against their own drivers for work.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Stop already. We aren't even close to real autonomous cars.
We are just years away from cars that work extremely well within a defined target area, like a city, or a narrowly defined route, like trucking - so companies like Uber will be the first to self driving cars and trucks on a wide scale.
I agree general purpose fully autonomous cars are a ways off more. But not as far off as you think, research has increased dramatically in this regard and huge leaps are being made every year now. Maybe ten years but probably not that long. It's only ten years because most car companies are so slow to design the bodies....
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Taxi drivers can actually earn a living wage.
So do all of the Uber drivers I have talked to. If they want to work mostly full time, they can easily make a living wage by taking advantage of surge pricing earnings (which is after all the reason surge pricing exists).
To help them out I usually tip them (even though you are not supposed to). Even with tip an Uber is less than the base fare of a "real" taxi and usually far nicer to ride around in. On a recent trip I took an uber one way, and a taxi back the other - Uber was totally clean and had a nice driver. In the taxi someone ad left discarded yogurt containers in the back, which I had the pleasure of riding with - the driver was OK though not as friendly. And of course, the fare was 2.5x that of the Uber ride for exactly the same endpoints...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The truckers union is not that bad.
But for an uber union driver it can be paid hourly with an time clock that where drivers who are waiting and ready for an ride are on the clock, returning to the main pickup zone from an long fair on the clock, waiting in the airport line on the clock, with all miles paid at least the IRS rate + all tolls covered or driving cars owned by uber at no cost to the driver.
If uber wants an lot of drivers ready for fairs then they should be paid and not only paid if they get an fair. Maybe uber will have to have people wait longer if they don't want to pay to have 50 drivers just siting around waiting for an fair.
Its a subsidiary that provides some amorphous driver/rider insurance plan from a subcontractor called James River insurance company that they go out of the way to confirm has "an A- rating" from A. M. Best. that rating is their credit rating, not an indicator of their overall business performance or likeability. It showed up in 2014, and only appears available or relevant in the city of San Francisco where there ostensibly exists a regulation of some sort to mandate the existence of insurance for "ride sharing" providers.
why the insurance brokering subcontractor of a rideshare goup is filing a lawsuit against a municipality is pretty interesting, but if i were a gambling man I would guess its important for a subsidiary to file this lawsuit instead of Uber so as to help strictly maintain the illusion that Uber somehow is not an employer. That having been said, if Uber isnt an employer, and neither is the subsidiary, its very difficult to see a way this lawsuit will succeed. What it can do --through proxying cash from Uber-- is become a very protracted and expensive reminder why government should step the fuck off.
Good people go to bed earlier.
How can Uber have standing in a court case about regulations for employees, when the swear blind that the drivers they are employing are not employees?
All hail the new Robber Barons!
That would be the unions of today, who steal from their members to give to themselves. Why do you think so many unions make it MANDATORY for workers to become members?
If a union was useful to a worker, workers would be eager to join instead of being forced to. Being forced to pay for an organization that provides no goods or services to you is the LITERAL DEFINITION of robbery.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Let them unionize. When they do, just pull out of the market. Bam, they lose their "jobs" and you don't have to deal with a union.
I have never known a billionaire union leader. On the other hand, just about every successful business leader today seems to be a billionaire. Who is stealing here?
There's a gaping hole in your logic: governments that can block your human driver efforts could (would) also block your autonomous vehicles.
I consider that a good counter-argument, but I have thought about it and don't think that will be much of a problem... I think there would be a lot more pushback around most cities blocking self driving car technology than there is to simply extend union rules to ride sharing cars.
After all, self-driving cars should reduce cars on the road and also reduce accident rates, so there are a lot more parties interested in protecting the ability of self-driving cars to operate than there are to protect Uber from unions.
A current test-bed of this is New York City, where the drivers unions want a 50-year ban(!) on driverless cars to protect driving jobs.. note that doesn't mean they don't want self driving cars, they just want someone to have to pay for a butt in seat in the front.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Same old misinformation. The real thieves are the CEOs
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Why do you think so many unions make it MANDATORY for workers to become members?
Because if they didn't, they'd have freeloaders who receive the benefits of union protection of their jobs without paying the dues.
And BTW, nowadays, it's a very fortunate union that can negotiate a "closed shop" (mandatory membership) contract.
If a union was useful to a worker, workers would be eager to join instead of being forced to. Being forced to pay for an organization that provides no goods or services to you is the LITERAL DEFINITION of robbery.
First of all, unions do provide goods and services to their members. You may not like what they do, or want what they provide, or be cynical about them in general. But you cannot claim that they don't provide goods and services.
I'm forced to pay taxes. I may not agree with what my government does with the money. But I don't question the fairness of paying my share of taxes.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
They set wage levels and even collude to drive down wages[*]. When they set pay levels for a company they are collective bargaining, for management and the stock holders, as much as a union does. Why shouldn't human beings be allowed to do so as well? Or are they not people too?
[*] see the Apple, Google, HP wage collusion case.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Not quite a billionaire, but: http://watchdog.org/212919/uni...
Union leaders are just crooks and worse, they fool folks like you into defending them.
in fact that's the entire point of an organization.. it's an 'organization', power floats to the top. And, yes, some unions are greedy and need to understand the prevailing market. But why can not workers also organize themselves.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
If you don't want to be Union, don't work for a Union shop. While I don't care for my Union's political suggestions, I quite appreciate the bargain they've etched out for us members. I have a pension plan(employer paid), 401k plan(not matched), vision, dental, healthcare ($15 a week for my wife and I, $2500 yearly deductible per person, no copays, drug reimbursement), and make about 49k in actual wages as well. I also get 4 weeks vacation, 6 sick days, 3 personal days and triple time for 6 holidays or flat time for staying home and fondling the wife.
I only work 40 hours a week and get OT on the rare occasions they want me to stay. I also work 6a-2:30p which is a great shift that misses most traffic. Sure, I'm not high on the hog, but I own a townhouse that has nearly doubled in value over the past 7 years, own a reliable car I enjoy and go on resort style vacations every other year. Oh, and it's a private sector union job, not government.
Life is comfortable and depending on how the market swings, we could potentially buy into a house in the next five years.
But yeah, unions are just so terrible.
Being forced to pay for an organization that provides no goods or services to you is the LITERAL DEFINITION of robbery.
Let me guess- you're one of those guys that complains about having to pay for schools and libraries and other services because you don't use them?
Frankly, I've never seen a union that didn't provide some sort of benefit to the members. Yes, there are abuses in the union system and I wouldn't even say they're rare, but they do provide services to the members.
In some ways I think unions have gone too far and/or become too overreaching, but in general I think we're better off with them than without them.
And in case anyone is wondering, no, I've never been a union member and I don't think anyone in my family has either.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I'm forced to pay taxes. I may not agree with what my government does with the money. But I don't question the fairness of paying my share of taxes.
Exactly. We don't live in a vacuum and the day of the self-sufficient "rugged individualist" is over for 99.9999% of the population. We all have to pay for things that we personally may not want, but other people are saying the exact same thing about things we do want.
We're all in this together, like it or not and just because Joe Blow doesn't want to pay for a school or a library or other service that he may not use directly doesn't mean that making him pay for it is evil or wrong- other members of the society he lives in may need it.
The fact is that we all need to share the burden in order to provide a certain standard of living for the society in which we live.
If you literally live 100% off the grid and NEVER use a road or any centrally operated service (electricity, food, water, hospitals, police, etc), then you might have a case for not paying taxes. But I don't think those people really exist anymore. Even if they do, unless they're living a 17th century lifestyle they're still using the fruits of society's labor.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
On the other hand, just about every successful business leader today seems to be a billionaire.
Sure, if you circularly define "successful" as "billionaire"
If you hate unions so much, why didn't YOU sue to prevent drivers from unionizing? I assume that you don't employ drivers, therefore you've got exactly as much standing as a company like Uber that doesn't employ drivers.
Uber's response is pants-on-head retarded for a company that is trying to insist it has no employees. Their correct course of action would be to absolutely ignore everything this "union" does, and continue with whatever click-through agreement that drivers agree to in order to drive for Uber, because without employees, there is literally nothing the "union" can do other than whine and beg their members to quit driving for Uber.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
When corporations band together to collectively bargain, it's called collusion and is an anti-trust violation. Further, the issue isn't the union, it's the closed shop state thing where you absolutely must pay the union in order to keep your job, even if they are deliberately, willfully negotiating against your interests.
If you don't want to be Union, don't work for a Union shop
Seattle is trying to make that impossible if you are a driver as per the original article. NOW do you see the problem with requiring Uber to support unions?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And yet, in the UK where it is illegal to make union membership compulsory, unions seem to work better. If people see the unions working on their behalf, then they're generally happy to pay the dues (sure, you get a few freeloaders, but not enough to break the system). If a union is not representing the interests of the majority of its members, then it will quickly see its funding dry up. Importantly, voluntarily paying union dues is a big signal to the employer that the union actually does have negotiating power: it implies that the the union is trusted by the majority of the employees to bargain on their behalf. In many places, you have two or more competing unions (though the law says that any deal reached by one union must be offered to all employees, irrespective of whether they are members of that union) and so not only does a union have to represent its members' interests to retain its income, it has to represent those interests better than the competition.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
>But I don't think those people really exist anymore. Even if they do, unless they're living a 17th century lifestyle they're still using the fruits of society's labor.
I've lived in the remote Rockies and the degree to which people don't get this is insane. And there is *no* getting away from the ties of society.
Even if you live in a grass hut eating squirrels, the reason you aren't overrun by armed individuals is because of modern society. Without taxes paying for cops and the military it would be a true free for all and nothing like the romantic squirrel eating utopia of their dreams. You'd more likely be in an internment camp of the invading force that took advantage of this situation.
A law to the extent that "no autonomous vehicle shall be used to transport passengers or cargo for hire within the limits of the city. Violators shall forfeit the vehicle and pay a $250,000 fine" still supports the autonomous car, and would make the unions happy. Most big cities are deeply blue, and deep blue areas are the places where unions still have any kind of foothold and still exercise power.
Again, I think you're just being unrealistic in your assessment of how easy it will be to displace things like taxi unions.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
I live in Belgium and everybody (or at least every adult) can join a union if they want to. You have a selection of unions where you can go to, regardless where or if you work. There are some that are more specialized. e.g. for train staff, for white color, for management (yes, they can join a union as well), military and there will be several that will be specialized.
I just am with one that is close to where I live, because that is what was important to me.
So I just join the union and that is about it. None of the companies I worked for cared, except one, because they paid the contribution. When people are hired, nobody will ask if you are union or not, because nobody cares. I can imagine you are not even allowed to ask, but it is not important.
Also if the company has more than 50 employees, you have to have social elections that will vote for union representatives that will have monthly meetings with management.
So we have the choice and in reality every company with more than 50 people is unionized. All of them. By law.
The advantage is that it keeps the companies in check a bit. I get my 35 days vacation. I get several weeks payment minimal when they fire me (unless I did something illegal) and if there are major cuts in staffing, they will negotiate a much better deal than I ever could. e.g. 7 months pay after working somewhere for 2 years for me. Minimum was 3.5 months for somebody who was there for 1 month and others who worked there longer it was a lot more.
So yeah, I think it is strange that anybody could forbid me to join a union or even decide that I MUST join a union, or I can not get the job. (See, works both ways)
From what I see, the US has guilds not unions. A guild is something that protects the profession. A union protects its members. At least that is the difference to me.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Do you have to train to be that ignorant, or were you just born that way?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
It's probably also illegal over there to just fire everyone for mentioning the word, though.
In the US, the "right to work" states only *sound* good on paper. It makes sense, people shouldn't be forced to join if they won't be getting the benefits.
In practice? It's actually set up to ensure the employees have basically no rights and should be thankful they're even given the privilege of working for peanut shells.
Call it "for motherhood and apple-pie" all they want, it's all anything but.
We all have to pay for things that we personally may not want, but other people are saying the exact same thing about things we do want.
Umm.. excuse me but WHAT? In a free society you only pay for the things you want, e.g. My apartment, my food, my netflix subscription, my internet etc. There is not a single thing that i pay money for that I DONT WANT. If i didn't want it i wouldn't have paid for it. Thats not the same for taxes. I pay for other kids to go to juvenile detention indoctrination centers (schools) i don't approve of them or other people sending their kids to them. I also pay for water even if i buy my own water from a commercial supplier. I'd love to get the money back that i spend on 'police' so i can instead buy another gun or maybe a personal body guard, either way the private sector would deliver me far superior security than i get from the state for 'free'. And if our government would allow roads to be built, owned, and wholly operated by private businesses I would gladly pay to use those instead of government ones.
The fact is that we all need to share the burden in order to provide a certain standard of living for the society in which we live.
Yeah but we probably disagree on what 'sharing the burden' means. There is a homeless man on the street. My solution is to give him a good meal, maybe have a conversation, see if i can help him acquire the medication, counseling, or temporary housing that he needs to get back on his feet. Your solution is probably for me to 'pay taxes for homeless program'
Charity is only charity when the money is given freely from the heart. Forcing me to pay taxes to help the poor isn't charity. and you're not being a good person by advocating for increased taxes to help the homeless. Your being an authoritarian, if you think its a problem, then donate your own money and or time.
Also, Society != Government. Stop confusing the two
Thats not the same for taxes.
And yet taxes are exactly the thing I was referring to. I never said anyone was forcing you to pay for cable TV or or a refrigerator. But if you live within a society that provides services to the population at large, you should expect to help pay for those things. Would you prefer there to be no police or fire services, no emergency rooms, and no regulations at all on anything?
-
And if our government would allow roads to be built, owned, and wholly operated by private businesses I would gladly pay to use those instead of government ones.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, because all the people that would do those things only have our best interests at heart and would be completely fair about it. *cough*
In other words, "found the libertarian!"
-
Your solution is probably for me to 'pay taxes for homeless program'
Not necessarily, but I would agree that it's probably a more effective way to help mitigate homelessness than by relying on the uncertain, inconsistent, and fickle generosity of the the population at large. If that weren't the case then no one would feel the need to enact government-funded homeless programs. If charity worked then none of of the typical government-run social services would ever be needed....but they are.
-
Charity is only charity when the money is given freely from the heart.
I never said anything about charity, mostly because it doesn't work for large-scale problems. Charity really doesn't work on a national level, never has, never will. There are simply too many selfish people in the world and we both know it.
-
Forcing me to pay taxes to help the poor isn't charity.
Thanks for ignoring the fact that I never said any such thing. Yes, taxes and charity are two different things...maybe that's why there are two different words for them.
-
Also, Society != Government. Stop confusing the two
The fact is, though, that there's a huge amount of overlap in those two things. They are both shaped by each other, and only a fool or a libertarian would deny that. Which one are you? Are you the kind of guy who complains about having to pay for a road you may never personally drive on?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Do you have to train to be that ignorant, or were you just born that way ?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
But if you live within a society that provides services to the population at large, you should expect to help pay for those things.
again, you are confusing society with government. The first definition i found online for society was 'the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community' you can have order without government. I should not be expected to pay for anything against my will. That is the case in the US today, and its an authoritarian approach, you are free to think its good or bad, but its definitely not freedom.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, because all the people that would do those things only have our best interests at heart and would be completely fair about it.
never did say they would have our best interest at heart or would be completely fair about it. Its also implied that the government DOES have our best interests at heart and is completely fair about it, i would reject both those assumptions
I never said anything about charity, mostly because it doesn't work for large-scale problems. Charity really doesn't work on a national level, never has, never will. There are simply too many selfish people in the world and we both know it.
Well i completely disagree, charity does work, we have lots of charitable organizations and they do great work at local, state, and national levels. To say 'it doesn't really work' i think is really to imply that charities don't donate enough, and the answer to that problem i think is to encourage people to donate more money, deregulate charities so they are free to conduct wild experiments that may be radically more efficient. I also think reducing taxes would encourage people to donate more. It feels like a cop-out to me to say 'people aren't charitable enough, so we have to FORCE EVERYONE to donate money to this inefficient bureaucracy cause that will totally fix the problem'
You are correct that you didn't directly mention charity, but most services offered to the poor that don't come from governments come from charities, which i find to be much more compatible with freedom than the authoritarian approach that is taxation.
We're all in this together, like it or not and just because Joe Blow doesn't want to pay for a school or a library or other service that he may not use directly doesn't mean that making him pay for it is evil or wrong- other members of the society he lives in may need it.
This is fundamentally the statement i am disagreeing with. I believe it IS wrong to force joe blow to pay for a school or library that he doesn't use directly. Instead of taxation i am recommending increasing the role that charities play in our society.
The fact is, though, that there's a huge amount of overlap in those two things. They are both shaped by each other, and only a fool or a libertarian would deny that. Which one are you? Are you the kind of guy who complains about having to pay for a road you may never personally drive on?
Societies do indeed shape the government that attempts to rule it, and governments can shape the society it governs (unfortunately). I think it is very important for citizens to remember that these are indeed separate concepts and entities that should not be confused with each other. To equate one with another is to fall into a multitude of intellectual fallacies. I have read some incredibly smart people write some incredibly stupid things because they made this basic mistake. I also feel like you are trying to shame me for being a 'libertarian' as if that would be a bad thing, or equivalent to a 'fool'. I realize there are many other libertarians who post on /. so maybe that word has specific connotations for you that it doesn't for me, perhaps due to some aggressive libertarians rubbing you the wrong way. I will admit to being a practical minarchist libertarian ( i don't advocate for the abolishment of government but
again, you are confusing society with government.
No, I am not.
-
never did say they would have our best interest at heart or would be completely fair about it. Its also implied that the government DOES have our best interests at heart and is completely fair about it
I'd say the government is fairer than robber barons or private commercial interests whose only interest is in the bottom line.
-
Well i completely disagree, charity does work, we have lots of charitable organizations and they do great work at local, state, and national levels.
Lol, horsecrap. If charity worked there would be no need for government programs that do all the things charity doesn't. Charity is far more fickle and biased than the average government program. This has been shown to be the case again and again and again. Like Catholic "charities" that won't provide birth control services to women, or who can always find some bullshit in their bible to justify not helping certain kinds of people.
-
You are correct that you didn't directly mention charity, but most services offered to the poor that don't come from governments come from charities, which i find to be much more compatible with freedom
They *might* be more compatible, but they're not more effective or useful, and they're so limited in scope that they're not even effective on a limited local level. If they are, why are there hungry and homeless people in every town and city in the nation? Where is all the charity that is supposed to be helping them?
-
This is fundamentally the statement i am disagreeing with. I believe it IS wrong to force joe blow to pay for a school or library that he doesn't use directly.
And here is the basic selfishness and stupidity of the libertarian mindset- "If it ain't good for me, I ain't paying for it!" But a school that your kids don't go to is actually busy producing your future scientists, engineers, and doctors, among other things. You're just too shortsighted and mercenary to grasp that.
-
I also feel like you are trying to shame me for being a 'libertarian' as if that would be a bad thing, or equivalent to a 'fool'.
You said it, pal, not me.
In general, libertarians are the greediest, most naive people on the planet. They have this pathetic notion that they are, at heart, rugged individualists who need not care for anyone outside their immediate circle. Their romantic fantasies of self-sufficiency collide with the real world in ways that would harm everyone (except the rich) if they were ever to able to enact their hateful, dumbfuck notions.
The problem most libertarians have is they never think that they'll be the ones getting fucked over by libertarian policies made real. It'll never be YOUR wife or YOUR child who'll die from some untested medication or contaminated food or unsafe electrical appliance. It'll always be the other guy whose wife or kid dies, and then the Magical Invisible Hand Of The Market will punish that company and force them out of business, so you'll be safe, right?
And if it IS your kid or your wife, well shucks, you can just take them to court for damages, right? Because that will bring your child or wife back to life, right?
Libertarianism is a load of uncaring, uncharitable, self-serving horseshit, and that's why there has never been a successful libertarian society in all of recorded history. Never, not once. If I'm wrong, go ahead and name me a few viable libertarian societies if you can...I'll wait.
Libertarians are just anarchists who want police protection from their slaves. Me, me, me, and to hell with everyone else. And they're hypocrites, like Ayn Rand who was happily (but secretly) accepting government services like Social Security and Medicare when she needed it.
Libertarianism is is just a way for conservatives pass of
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Oh please, please, PLEASE implement this. It is so much easier to kill one or two people and seize everything they have than it is to avoid, overcome, or defeat an entire police force.
What you really want is police protection without paying for it, and perhaps some more guns. If you could truly choose to be an old timey outlaw,, i.e., someone who is excluded from the protection of the law, you wouldn't have the balls to take us up on it.
Well I guess my original assessment was correct, you do have some kind of grudge against libertarians (or a few where very rude to you). So I won't try to persuade you of its merits, only to try to implore that my libertarian beliefs do not come from a place of hate or uncaring, I just sincerely believe in freedom and that maximization of freedom is the best policy for all issues, for I truly believe that freedom brings about prosperity for all and incentiveizes regions to pursue peace. As for successful libertarian societies: 1) Twelve tribes of Israel during the reign of judges 2) first 200 years of rome 3) Spain circa 1700, prior to war with england 4) United States of America 1700-1800
Well I guess my original assessment was correct, you do have some kind of grudge against libertarians (or a few where very rude to you).
A grudge? Well if not putting up with pie-in-the-sky bullshit is a "grudge", then I guess I'm grudgy. Frankly I find most libertarians to be shallow in the depth of their understanding of the whole concept and incapable of seeing why libertarianism is unfeasible.
-
I just sincerely believe in freedom and that maximization of freedom is the best policy for all issues, for I truly believe that freedom brings about prosperity for all and incentiveizes regions to pursue peace.
You know, I actually believe that that's what you believe, but I also believe that you have never bothered to dig down into the details of what a libertarian society would actually entail. For example,
1) Where do property rights come from, how are they established, and in the case of disputes, how would the determination of true ownership be decided and enforced? Specifically, who would enforce them and how?
2) Who or what would take the place of the police departments that keep everyone stronger than you from stealing your stuff, and from where would they derive their legitimacy?
As for successful libertarian societies:
1) Twelve tribes of Israel during the reign of judges
2) first 200 years of rome
3) Spain circa 1700, prior to war with england
4) United States of America 1700-1800
None of those are actual examples of libertarian societies, viable or otherwise...some of them stumbled along until a centralized government could be established, but if you really want to live as people did in any of the time periods you mention, feel free. It won't be long before someone comes and takes your all your stuff by force. And then who will you look to for assistance?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
1) Where do property rights come from, how are they established, and in the case of disputes, how would the determination of true ownership be decided and enforced? Specifically, who would enforce them and how?
They come from god, (or if you don't believe in that sort of thing) our humanity. We are all born with a piece of property, the first property you own is your body. In Israel during the times of judges when there where disputes over who owned what property both disputing parties would go to a neutral third party that was respected amongst the community as being fair (these where the 'judges') societal norms (not laws enforced by a government) made sure that both parties would agree to arbitration, with the only discussion being who the arbiter would be.
An anarchist libertarian would argue that this function (arbitration) could be handled by private services. There are some interesting proposals out there about how insurance companies could evolve to fulfill this role. I am not an anarchist, i am a minarchist. I have no problem with locally elected sheriffs that deputize citizens when needed (as apposed to a professional police force), i have no problems with jury trials (so long as the jury is truly your peers from the local community) and judges elected or nominated by locally elected officials. The court system gets extra points if they decide facts only based on local (state) law and ignore federal laws or precedent, even more points if jury nullification is openly discussed and even encouraged.
Who or what would take the place of the police departments that keep everyone stronger than you from stealing your stuff, and from where would they derive their legitimacy?
This problem exists even today with governments. There was nothing to stop the stronger American government from invading iraq and taking their stuff. Our country has even overthrown legitimately elected government officials because they didn't agree with US policy. So even if we got rid of governments and had multiple companies offering these arbitration/protection services within the same territory, competing on price/quality for maximum customers and therefore profits, we would still have the problem where my insurance company is bigger than yours and demands that the judge on MY companies payroll be the arbiter of our dispute. What we have today is not perfect, and the anarchists libertarian solution is not perfect either, but its possible that it is better than what we have today
But i digress and acknowledge that a peaceful world with no government is beyond our grasp. Instead i will dedicate myself to fighting for government that is actually held accountable to the people (which to me means small, more locally controlled government) getting there necessitates a massive reduction of taxes in the US. Jesus they tax income, spending, investement, AND Savings?? Whats next death? Oh wait..... I have actually discussed state taxes with my state reps/senators before, and managed to influence the votes they made on key bills, that actually did a small part in preventing certain taxes from being raised. No matter how many times I email/call my US representative or Senator, I never get to talk to the politician directly, just aides, and pretty much nothing ever comes from my communications. It was seeing a pro-taxes post that got me upset, because though i understand the necessary evil of both government and taxes, i DO NOT think we need as much as we have today, nor do i think it is healthy for a free society
They come from god, (or if you don't believe in that sort of thing) our humanity.
That's great if you believe in magical invisible super-beings whose existence can't even be proven, but what I was asking about was actual property like real estate. Who really owns the land your home is on, and where did those ownership rights come from? Who or what gave you the right or authority to buy it, and how can you prove it's yours? Who enforces your claim of ownership if there's a dispute?
-
... would go to a neutral third party that was respected amongst the community as being fair (these where the 'judges') societal norms (not laws enforced by a government)
And what if I don't agree to recognize that authority for what I believe to be good reason(s)? What then? Can I dispute it by force? What if there's a greater, better-armed force that disagrees and supports me?
-
i have no problems with jury trials (so long as the jury is truly your peers from the local community) and judges elected or nominated by locally elected officials.
And what if these people are all bought off or on the take, or just don't like you and want to screw you over? What then? Who has the ultimate authority to decide and what specifically gives them the right to do so? Why does their authority outweigh yours?
-
You didn't really answer this question, so I'll ask it again: Who or what would take the place of the police departments that keep everyone stronger than you from stealing your stuff, and from where would they derive their legitimacy?
-
This problem exists even today with governments. There was nothing to stop the stronger American government from invading iraq and taking their stuff.
I'm not talking about international conflicts, I'm asking what's going to stop me and my hired group of Blackwater mercenaries from coming over to your place, killing you and your family, and taking all your stuff? Who would oppose me and where would they get the authority to do so? What if I'm the strongest entity around and I don't recognize them as having any legitimacy? Who's gonna stand up to me? Who's going prevent me from taking over the town by force?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
i have no problems with jury trials (so long as the jury is truly your peers from the local community) and judges elected or nominated by locally elected officials.
And what if these people are all bought off or on the take, or just don't like you and want to screw you over? What then? Who has the ultimate authority to decide and what specifically gives them the right to do so? Why does their authority outweigh yours?
This is a really good argument against the arbitrary power of government. Why is it that government officials seem to have authority that outweighs ours? Are you sure you're not a libertarian?
This is a really good argument against the arbitrary power of government.
You know what would be a good argument? Your actually answering my questions instead of deflecting. It's almost like you have no substantive answers to the questions I posed...
1) Who really owns the land your home is on, and where did those ownership rights come from?
2) Who or what gave you the right or authority to buy it, and how can you prove it's yours?
3) Who enforces your claim of ownership if there's a dispute?
4) What if I don't agree to recognize that authority for what I believe to be good reason(s)? Can I dispute it by force?
5) What if there's a greater, better-armed force that disagrees with you and supports me? What then?
6) Who has the ultimate authority to decide and what specifically gives them the right to do so?
7) In #6, why does this entity's authority outweigh yours (or mine)?
8) Who or what would take the place of the police departments that keeps everyone stronger than you from stealing your stuff, and from where would they derive their legitimacy?
You can't answer these questions. No libertarian can answer these questions. (In fact, most libertarians can't even agree on a specific definition of what "libertarian" means.)
-
Why is it that government officials seem to have authority that outweighs ours?
Because most people realize that for society to function there needs to be some sort of entity with the absolute authority to rule on things. No, government isn't perfect by a long shot, but it's far, far better than the "might-makes-right" feudal systems that libertarianism would inevitably produce.
-
Are you sure you're not a libertarian?
Yeah, I'm quite sure.
Look, I've been exposed to the fuzzy reasoning and pie-in-the-sky claims of the libertarian mindset for decades and it's never made any sense.
"Enlightened self-interest" my ass. Show me anyplace on Earth where that would work given basic human nature.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...