I need a more reliable definition of 'quite level' before I can say it is sufficient for fair competition, on the specific case of Uber I agree with dywolf
No. It's really quite simple. In the first sentence I was simply stating he misunderstood what I was talking about. In the second sentence I was simply stating that if he wanted to try and argue something like "Bus, cab, and Lyft" all compete on a level playing then I was listening.
I was responding to Mi's question on ethics, with a question for Mi. It had nothing to do with the free market (which is a contradiction in terms) ideology.
"If you need a very large incentive to not engage in crime even the death penalty won't deter you, it might even make the criminal activity more exiting."
Scrath "make the criminal activity more exiting", what I'm looking for is more along the line of: part of the motivation for incarceration and execution can by revenge, part of the motivation for crime can be revenge too.
"It's actually about giving the rest of society an incentive to not engage in the same crimes for which someone else was found guilty."
But that doesn't work.
If you need a small incentive to not engage in crime then working on better socio-developmental environments for everyone is a better avenue.
If you need a larger incentive to not engage in crime then going to prison doesn't deter you and can make you a better criminal.
If you need a very large incentive to not engage in crime even the death penalty won't deter you, it might even make the criminal activity more exiting.
But the worse socially is having the death penalty, or "punishing" sanctions, means you have a more cruel society which leads to more unrest and more crime.
No need for funding to be evil for it to have an agenda
"The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine... funded by Congress... foundations, state governments, the private sector, and philanthropy from individuals"
If you play on the words, you can consider capitalism as the new word for the same old top down rule ie the closer you are to the top the more power you have, looked at that way you can say that in fact its introducing socialism* into a capitalist system that led to growth, wealth, and equality.
* of course not every variant tried has achieved the same positive results
I was just trying to point out that the root of capitalism is more about those closer to the top having more power over those below them than 'both parties end up richer' unless by both you mean two parties working together to 'profit' off of people lower in the hierarchy.
"Bullshit. Capitalist transactions (in a free-ish market) work because they benefit all parties to the transaction."
I think you mean something closer to 'financial transactions'. For me capitalism is like more about the accumulation of wealth and 'the one with most gets to decide the most', and how transactions operate specifically is secondary.
"Most libertarians, including me, think that we need a government for the reasons you outline. We just want that government to be small and do little. To maximize liberty."
Yeah but why would small and little maximize liberty. Don't you mean you want something like an efficient and productive government
"Maybe you meant Communists? I haven't had much luck finding one well versed on philosophy who was willing to explain their beliefs to me. However, they're the ones who believe that everyone will work together in the shared best interest without market or government intervention. Oddly, they still seem to think governments are important and that the solution to problems is more governmental power"
Seems you aren't looking in the right places for your explanation
"How so? I'd think that pulling out into traffic coming from behind (and in the "blind spot" for most cars) is inherently more difficult than pulling out into oncoming traffic that you can clearly see without turning your head or using a rear-view mirror."
Because if you park on the side facing traffic, you have to negotiate with traffic in two directions when you pull out, whereas if you park on the other side you only have one negotiate with traffic coming from one direction.
"While I think it is right that we the public should get to hear about this sort of news, I think that the media tries to turn everything they report into as big a story as they can in order to make money out of us rather than to report cold hard (often boring) facts"
I agree.
"The negative image does not benefit the public, or the police"
Yes, but at the same I think there is a link between media coverage intensity and a willingness to remedy the problems.
"I think it's fair to say that in order to remedy the situation the police need to be utterly transparent about what they do and what they get wrong. But equally, I think they need to be allowed to do this by the media without being damned as an organization when an individual has done something unforgivable"
Good point. While still agreeing with what I said above, at the same time, I can see that if media worked on not spreading blame to police and law enforcement in general it could facilitate the implementation and internal support for the needed changes.
"Indeed, that is exactly what I said. Police brutality is wrong and criminal and should be treated as such. I was very clear about that."
Yes, I wanted to emphasize that it was more than "possibly criminal"
"I ALSO think however that it is incorrect to judge ALL police on the actions of a few criminal individuals."
Yes, of course I agree. The proportion of blame that can be attributed to the police force is most concentrated on a small part of the force.
"However the culture of secrecy is by in large a direct consequence of trying to avoid the inevitable, derogatory, riot-inciting media frenzy that follows"
I disagree, I think that "inevitable, derogatory, riot-inciting media frenzy that follows" is "a large direct consequence" of both the few cops that partake in criminal behavior and coverups, and the few people who claim all cops partake in criminal behavior and coverups, and the latter group tends to make less sweeping claims when the former group tends to be smaller or partakes in less criminal behaviors
"Sweeping brutality under the carpet or trying to cover it up is indeed wrong (possibly criminal in itself) and should be robustly discouraged. However the culture of secrecy is by in large a direct consequence of trying to avoid the inevitable, derogatory, riot-inciting media frenzy that follows"
If some police cover up brutality, including when they kill someone without legal cause, the right word for their behavior is criminal and you can't justify their behavior by saying they did it because they feared what would happen if the general public or the media found out about it.
Slashdot Mirror
And you?
# Official taxis ... fight Uber and Lyft and others equally. #
# Nothing is ever perfectly level #
Of course
# quite level is sufficient. #
I need a more reliable definition of 'quite level' before I can say it is sufficient for fair competition, on the specific case of Uber I agree with dywolf
"The playing field is quite level and the competition certainly exists"
Quite level isn't good enough.
If one team has to wear lead shoes and the other one doesn't it isn't anywhere near a free market.
No. It's really quite simple. In the first sentence I was simply stating he misunderstood what I was talking about. In the second sentence I was simply stating that if he wanted to try and argue something like "Bus, cab, and Lyft" all compete on a level playing then I was listening.
I was responding to Mi's question on ethics, with a question for Mi. It had nothing to do with the free market (which is a contradiction in terms) ideology.
I was replying to a general Libertarianist's statement that all "competition" is good competition.
But if you want to make a specific argument, say that Uber is competing on level grounds with cabs go ahead.
"Would their use of it be unethical — I'm not sure... Could you elaborate, why you think so?"
You've been poisoned. When you arrive at a clinic is it ok for them to raise the price of the antidote proportionately to how close you are to dying?
"just call a competitor and be on your way..."
False, no level playing field, no competition.
"If you need a very large incentive to not engage in crime even the death penalty won't deter you, it might even make the criminal activity more exiting."
Scrath "make the criminal activity more exiting", what I'm looking for is more along the line of: part of the motivation for incarceration and execution can by revenge, part of the motivation for crime can be revenge too.
"It's actually about giving the rest of society an incentive to not engage in the same crimes for which someone else was found guilty."
But that doesn't work.
If you need a small incentive to not engage in crime then working on better socio-developmental environments for everyone is a better avenue.
If you need a larger incentive to not engage in crime then going to prison doesn't deter you and can make you a better criminal.
If you need a very large incentive to not engage in crime even the death penalty won't deter you, it might even make the criminal activity more exiting.
But the worse socially is having the death penalty, or "punishing" sanctions, means you have a more cruel society which leads to more unrest and more crime.
No need for funding to be evil for it to have an agenda
"The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine ... funded by Congress ... foundations, state governments, the private sector, and philanthropy from individuals"
http://www.nationalacademies.o...
If you play on the words, you can consider capitalism as the new word for the same old top down rule ie the closer you are to the top the more power you have, looked at that way you can say that in fact its introducing socialism* into a capitalist system that led to growth, wealth, and equality.
* of course not every variant tried has achieved the same positive results
I was just trying to point out that the root of capitalism is more about those closer to the top having more power over those below them than 'both parties end up richer' unless by both you mean two parties working together to 'profit' off of people lower in the hierarchy.
"Bullshit. Capitalist transactions (in a free-ish market) work because they benefit all parties to the transaction."
I think you mean something closer to 'financial transactions'. For me capitalism is like more about the accumulation of wealth and 'the one with most gets to decide the most', and how transactions operate specifically is secondary.
"Most libertarians, including me, think that we need a government for the reasons you outline. We just want that government to be small and do little. To maximize liberty."
Yeah but why would small and little maximize liberty. Don't you mean you want something like an efficient and productive government
"I assure you that libertarians understand this perfectly well."
Maybe you do, others I'm not so sure
"Maybe you meant Communists? I haven't had much luck finding one well versed on philosophy who was willing to explain their beliefs to me. However, they're the ones who believe that everyone will work together in the shared best interest without market or government intervention. Oddly, they still seem to think governments are important and that the solution to problems is more governmental power"
Seems you aren't looking in the right places for your explanation
"How so? I'd think that pulling out into traffic coming from behind (and in the "blind spot" for most cars) is inherently more difficult than pulling out into oncoming traffic that you can clearly see without turning your head or using a rear-view mirror."
Because if you park on the side facing traffic, you have to negotiate with traffic in two directions when you pull out, whereas if you park on the other side you only have one negotiate with traffic coming from one direction.
"While I think it is right that we the public should get to hear about this sort of news, I think that the media tries to turn everything they report into as big a story as they can in order to make money out of us rather than to report cold hard (often boring) facts"
I agree.
"The negative image does not benefit the public, or the police"
Yes, but at the same I think there is a link between media coverage intensity and a willingness to remedy the problems.
"I think it's fair to say that in order to remedy the situation the police need to be utterly transparent about what they do and what they get wrong. But equally, I think they need to be allowed to do this by the media without being damned as an organization when an individual has done something unforgivable"
Good point. While still agreeing with what I said above, at the same time, I can see that if media worked on not spreading blame to police and law enforcement in general it could facilitate the implementation and internal support for the needed changes.
"Indeed, that is exactly what I said. Police brutality is wrong and criminal and should be treated as such. I was very clear about that."
Yes, I wanted to emphasize that it was more than "possibly criminal"
"I ALSO think however that it is incorrect to judge ALL police on the actions of a few criminal individuals."
Yes, of course I agree. The proportion of blame that can be attributed to the police force is most concentrated on a small part of the force.
"However the culture of secrecy is by in large a direct consequence of trying to avoid the inevitable, derogatory, riot-inciting media frenzy that follows"
I disagree, I think that "inevitable, derogatory, riot-inciting media frenzy that follows" is "a large direct consequence" of both the few cops that partake in criminal behavior and coverups, and the few people who claim all cops partake in criminal behavior and coverups, and the latter group tends to make less sweeping claims when the former group tends to be smaller or partakes in less criminal behaviors
"Sweeping brutality under the carpet or trying to cover it up is indeed wrong (possibly criminal in itself) and should be robustly discouraged. However the culture of secrecy is by in large a direct consequence of trying to avoid the inevitable, derogatory, riot-inciting media frenzy that follows"
If some police cover up brutality, including when they kill someone without legal cause, the right word for their behavior is criminal and you can't justify their behavior by saying they did it because they feared what would happen if the general public or the media found out about it.
No.
What you say isn't true, and things like incitement to "eliminate" and "get rid of" a people isn't simply politically incorrect it is criminal.
Yeah, but are his numbers close?