First, somebody doing something commercially is, on the average, going to do more of it than somebody doing it for personal reasons, so there's increased risk exposure.
While this is true, it seems a better and more direct approach would be for insurance companies to consider time spent driving (and if that's hard to gauge, then mileage would probably be a good substitute). Surely the insurance companies would want to charge someone who is on the road 12 hours a day more than someone who does a couple uber jobs a week.
Second, somebody doing something commercially is more likely to have commitments, and more likely to do that something in more hazardous conditions. I'm a lot less likely to drive somewhere if I'm tired or if the weather is really bad than a commercial driver would be.
I don't think I really buy this claim. I could see it going both ways. If you are employed to drive, you might be more likely to observe legally mandatory breaks and limits on number of consecutive driving hours, etc. If you are just driving for yourself you don't have any of those restrictions. I think it depends on the type of person.
Third, the distinction makes it easier for people in their everyday lives. Lots of people here have complained about how easy it is to get a driver's license in the US, but in reality living in most places in the US without being able to drive is a handicap. This means that non-commercial drivers get a break, while commercial drivers can be expected to put in the extra effort to get their business going (like a special license).
I really don't see the point of making people's lives easier if it means that we will have unsafe drivers on the road. If someone crashes into me because they can't drive, I don't feel any better if it is a person who has worse insurance and is just living an everyday life.
The big insurance problem is when a driver doesn't get commercial insurance (meaning the "commercial" box is unchecked) and does drive commercially. That means the driver is driving in a way specifically not covered by the policy, and that is potentially a very big problem.
I buy hazard insurance for my house. If I falsely report that I have a fire extinguisher to get a lower rate (but actually don't), and my house burns down, is the insurance company still on the hook to cover my loss? I honestly don't know, but I think they still are because I think it is the insurance companies job to verify the information I give them and determine if they want to charge me a higher rate. I suspect that it is this way, because if it weren;t insurance companies would find all sorts of ways to get out of paying out for claims.
Regardless of whether hazard insurance actually works this way in various places, I think this model might work well for auto insurance as well.
The insurance companies that really care if you are specifically driving for commercial purposes can request documentation that shows your job description does not include driving, as well as something showing you are a full time employee, etc. The insurance companies that don;t really care, can just check the odometer on your car and charge you based on how much you drive regardless of what it's for.
I wouldn't have a problem with a law requiring uber (and others) to release license plates of current uber cars to insurance companies.
I don't doubt that it's a problem that some drivers are not covered. But I think the way to fix it is to make better laws, rather than simply punishing uber. We need robust laws that capture the accurately spirit of what we are trying to achieve. That way, they won't need to be rewritten every time someone comes up with a new technology, product or business model.
The other faction, led by Google, wanted to completely destroy this separation and make web pages into rich web apps that would ensure that you could only view the content in exactly the form that the authors intended. The main goal of this was to make it hard to distinguish content from ads and therefore make it hard to automatically remove ads.
Do you have any sources for this claim? Or is this your opinion? I'm just interested in the subject and would like to learn more.
I imagine that people who write shitty mobile app code, also write shitty mobile web code. I think web code is safer, because browser code is more highly scrutinized, and sandboxing is a good feature, but I don't think you should expect it to hog less memory, if anything it will be more.
The web started with content and formatting bundled together in html. Then we got tools like css, javascript, xm, json, web components, etc, that allowed (but didn't force) us to separate content and formatting.
Separating content and formatting is better for consumers and also developers/ Even google does it in their own pages.
I'm really not sure exactly what you are referring to. Is there a particular standard that Apple supported and Google opposed?
Because I think what you are talking about is actually the standard way of organizing web content, but some people elect to use older paradigms that browsers still support.
This insurance system is broken if it needs the person at fault to have insurance.
It doesn't *need* it. But if it is the case that we don't want a system where a person can get screwed by not having health insurance *AND* the taxi they are injured in also doesn't have insurance, and we want to fix this by forcing the taxi drivers to have insurance, then I would say we probably don't want a hole in this safety net mechanism for non-taxis. This also applies to non-health insurance claims (e.g. damage to other cars, etc).
And what I meant as other requirement are things like knowledge tests which I have seen that are required in countries like England or Germany. I don't see why those countries should dump that requirement just because Uber has appeared, and I don't see why regular drivers should have to follow with them in other to be in the same category.
I suppose it matters what knowledge is required to be a taxi driver in a particular city. I don't doubt that some cities may require taxi drivers to possess some special knowledge that regular drivers don't need, and I'm fine with those cities having those requirements if they are necessary. If the knowledge is just something like "know your way around the city", then I think Uber's mobile app (along with any GPS) pretty much removes the need for that skill like how calculators removed the need for people to be good at arithmetic.
In the places I have used uber, some drivers had not even lived in the city very long, but their phone told them exactly where to go without any problems. As far as I can tell, the basic skills of a taxi driver are owning a car and knowing how to drive it. Navigation is done by machines, and the actual driving probably will be one day as well, and we won;t even have taxi drivers anymore.
Why not put in the law that taxi drivers should have enough insurance to cover themselves and their passengers and let regular drivers choose whatever insurance level they want? Why should a regular driver face the same requirements as a taxi driver?
For all the same reasons you might want insurance in a taxi, you probably also want insurance when riding in a friends car. It's not like medical bills are more expensive when injured in a taxi.
Let's not forget that in some other places those requirements could involve more, and your solution would be to place the same requirements to regular drivers.
Yes it would.
My solution would require the same level of coverage, meaning that if a regular driver causes the same damage as a taxi, their insurance would pay out the same amount to cover the same things. That doesn't mean that both sets of insurance would come with the same price. It just means that if you are injured, you don't need to hope and pray that the person at fault has good taxi level insurance.
I am saying that we remove the legal difference between commercial and non-commercial driving, and have that be a distinction that insurance companies can choose to make. Just like how they make distinctions between drivers based on any number of other factors like age, health, mileage driven per month, driving record, type of of their vehicle, etc. "commercial driver" can just be one more check box they can tick.
I'm not even sure what the extra risk about being a commercial driver even is. Is it just that they are on the road more? If so, they non-commercial drivers who are on the road a lot should pay more too. I don't even know why we have this distinction, but it should be insurance companies deciding how much extra if anything commercial drivers should pay.
I'm sure some people disagree with compulsory insurance, but it is not something I am *just now* mandating.
And you are still treating uber and taxi drivers the same and distinct from regular driver, except that this time it would be the insurance company that makes the distinction, and not the law.
The private sector insurance companies are where taxi drivers and regular driver *should* be treated differently, because making an assessment of risk is the job of insurance companies not government bureaucrats. Society benefits from having simpler laws. They are already adjusting rates for age, health, type of vehicle, and previous driving records. They probably also factor in mileage driven.
All that matters is that they are covered. The law shouldn't mandate *how* they are covered. If some insurance company thinks taxi drivers are less risky than regular drivers, whats the problem? That should be for them to decide. Markets can't solve every problem, but this is exactly the kind of problem they are perfect for solving.
Typically, people doing something commercially are held to a higher standard than people doing something for personal reasons, so I'd expect the minimum insurance to be higher for commercial drivers.
That is typically true, but it could be for each insurance company to decide who they want to insure and for how much money.
That aside, lots of auto insurance policies have provisions making them invalid if the insured is driving commercially.
They can make that distinction if they want to.
Sometimes you can get a better deal by accepting restrictions. People buy these because they're cheaper than the same policy that does cover commercial driving. Then some of these people drive commercially (such as for Uber), and are effectively driving uninsured. Somebody needs to stop that, and a company that relies on commercial drivers is a good somebody to pick.
People are dishonest about all kinds of things when it comes to getting auto insurance. My mom lies about who the primary driver is on all the cars in our family to get a better rate. This is not a problem specific to taxis or uber.
But as I said. If the insurance laws are simpler, then we don't need special laws for taxis. We can just make two laws. "You must buy insurance." and "You must not lie to your insurance company."
taxi drivers and regular drivers are currently not treated the same, but they *could* be from a legal standpoint, and I think that would solve a lot of these problems.
The government could simply require a minimum level of insurance for all drivers (e.g. covers X things up to Y dollars, etc), and the price of that insurance would be determined by each insurance company for each individual driver probably based on things like amount of time spent on the road, type of vehicle, whether it is a taxi or uber car, etc.
In this way we wouldn't need special rules for insurance for taxi drivers, which makes sense, considering the sorts of damage that is caused by a taxi accident is basically the same as the damage caused by a car driven by a friend.
I hope we get a efficient system that is fair for everybody in each jurisdiction. I would like to see simple and effective insurance laws that don't require special consideration for taxi drivers. I would like to know that I am protected by insurance regardless of what kind of car I get in, whether it's a taxi, and uber, a semi-truck or a friend's car.
I would like a system where the supply of taxi drivers meets the demand at any given time, even if this means prices fluctuate to incentivize an increase in supply. By the same token I would like low demand to incentivize lowering supply. There is no sense in having a bunch of taxi drivers on the street with nothing to do.
I would like a taxi system where the fees are predictable beforehand, and an hailing a taxi can be done easily.
I really don;t care if uber is punished out of existence or not, but I would like another uber-like company to take it's place. I don't think uber is a "nice" company, but I don't think society served well by keeping outdated and inefficient laws that uber is trying to fight.
Maybe uber should be punished. Fine I don't care. What I want to see is the laws and taxi ecosystem change to one that is better than what exists, and I am rooting for uber as an agent of change.
If uber was in the driver seat, it would be the uber CEO in the judge's chair at the trials. I can't say for certain that Uber would turn down that opportunity if it were presented to them (they are a corporation afterall), but I don't think that's what they are trying to do.
If their plan was to specifically avoid being defined as a taxi service by the law, then they absolutely should be defending their actions by saying they are not a taxi service. A jury could determine that they have miscalculated what the definition of a taxi service is, in which case they should be punished. Or a jury could decide that they did in fact specifically avoid the legal definition of a taxi service, and they should not be punished.
Regardless of the outcomes of all these uber trials all over the world answer the questions "Is uber a taxi service?", bigger questions need to be answered, such as "What *should* a taxi service be defined as?" and "Is there a better way to regulate taxi services?". And new laws will probably result from each community answering these questions for themselves.
Rosa Parks didn't say "I 'm not actually black, so you shouldn't arrest me for sitting in the wrong seat on the bus".
I don't what if anything Rosa Parks said. But she probably thought that she was not an inferior person deserving of a lesser seat on the bus. I don't think Uber is taking the position that taxi services should be regulated but that they shouldn't be. I think their position is that those regulations shouldn't exist for anybody, including regular taxi services. So in this admittedly ridiculous analogy, uber is like Rosa Parks saying "We (uber and taxi companies) are not "black people", we are humans that should be treated equally with other humans (regular drivers)".
The laws decide what legally constitutes a taxi service, and the courts decide if Uber is in compliance with those local laws in every jurisdiction they operate.
No one has the "right" to break a law by the definitions of rights and laws. What everyone *can* do, is decide to break the law and accept whatever consequences arise from that decision.
You certainly *can* (try to) murder me if you want. I will try to stop you, but there is no law of the universe that prevents you from trying. If you are willing to accept the consequences of your actions, then go right ahead. The government may convict you of murder, or they may find you not guilty depending on what you can convince a jury to believe.
If you can't accept the consequences for your actions, then I suggest you rethink your actions.
I don't think you actually read my post, seeing as you seem to think I am arguing something different than I am. You can be comforted that I will be punished when you achieve the right not to be offended.
Restricting the supply of taxi drivers may drive up the price of taxis, but this doesn't necessarily help taxi drivers. The artificial increase in price also leads to the costs of becoming a taxi driver becoming higher. Often the taxi drivers don't actually own the medallions, but merely pay a large percentage of what they are paid to the entity renting a medallion to them. Or even if the drivers manage to buy a medallion, the market value of the medallion is reflected by their profit potential.
Artificially increasing the cost of providing a service, is not a viable strategy to make providing that service more profitable. All it actually does is disincentivize availability of that service. I don;t think we actually want to disincentivize the supply of taxis. I would argu that what we want is a supply that matches the demand at any given time. And honestly Uber does a great job of matching supply and demand, through supply/demand pricing.
People actually openly participate in jury nullification as a means of protest, both against unjust laws and to challenge the illegality of jury nullification itself. But 1. Jurors are acting as extensions of the legal system (the government) in a trial. and 2. Not all trials have jurors.
The other cab companies represent uncle tom's in this analogy. They are other black people that want to follow the rules and think uber should be punished for breaking them. Uber wants to be treated like other white people (regular drivers that don't need extra insurance, etc).
And we also have civil trials, as well as supreme court cases decided by judges.
The jury has the right to make any decision it wants, regardless of what the law says.
It depends on the state. Some states (I believe my own state California is one of them), it is actually illegal to make a decision as a juror that ignores the law. Obviously nobody can really know what your motives are and you can lie about them. But if you openly disobey the judges orders to make decisions based on what the law is (rather than what you think the law should be), you can be held in contempt of court and jailed.
It depends on the type of trial. We have jury trials. We also have trials that are decided by judges. The government is made up of people. When people are acting as jurors, they are acting as an extension of the government, just like police officers and judges are people acting as extensions of the government.
NO they don't have the *right* to disobey the law, as per the definitions of rights and laws. What they *can* do is decide to break the law and deal with whatever consequences arise out of it.
Slashdot Mirror
First, somebody doing something commercially is, on the average, going to do more of it than somebody doing it for personal reasons, so there's increased risk exposure.
While this is true, it seems a better and more direct approach would be for insurance companies to consider time spent driving (and if that's hard to gauge, then mileage would probably be a good substitute). Surely the insurance companies would want to charge someone who is on the road 12 hours a day more than someone who does a couple uber jobs a week.
Second, somebody doing something commercially is more likely to have commitments, and more likely to do that something in more hazardous conditions. I'm a lot less likely to drive somewhere if I'm tired or if the weather is really bad than a commercial driver would be.
I don't think I really buy this claim. I could see it going both ways. If you are employed to drive, you might be more likely to observe legally mandatory breaks and limits on number of consecutive driving hours, etc. If you are just driving for yourself you don't have any of those restrictions. I think it depends on the type of person.
Third, the distinction makes it easier for people in their everyday lives. Lots of people here have complained about how easy it is to get a driver's license in the US, but in reality living in most places in the US without being able to drive is a handicap. This means that non-commercial drivers get a break, while commercial drivers can be expected to put in the extra effort to get their business going (like a special license).
I really don't see the point of making people's lives easier if it means that we will have unsafe drivers on the road. If someone crashes into me because they can't drive, I don't feel any better if it is a person who has worse insurance and is just living an everyday life.
The big insurance problem is when a driver doesn't get commercial insurance (meaning the "commercial" box is unchecked) and does drive commercially. That means the driver is driving in a way specifically not covered by the policy, and that is potentially a very big problem.
I buy hazard insurance for my house. If I falsely report that I have a fire extinguisher to get a lower rate (but actually don't), and my house burns down, is the insurance company still on the hook to cover my loss? I honestly don't know, but I think they still are because I think it is the insurance companies job to verify the information I give them and determine if they want to charge me a higher rate. I suspect that it is this way, because if it weren;t insurance companies would find all sorts of ways to get out of paying out for claims.
Regardless of whether hazard insurance actually works this way in various places, I think this model might work well for auto insurance as well.
The insurance companies that really care if you are specifically driving for commercial purposes can request documentation that shows your job description does not include driving, as well as something showing you are a full time employee, etc. The insurance companies that don;t really care, can just check the odometer on your car and charge you based on how much you drive regardless of what it's for.
I wouldn't have a problem with a law requiring uber (and others) to release license plates of current uber cars to insurance companies.
I don't doubt that it's a problem that some drivers are not covered. But I think the way to fix it is to make better laws, rather than simply punishing uber. We need robust laws that capture the accurately spirit of what we are trying to achieve. That way, they won't need to be rewritten every time someone comes up with a new technology, product or business model.
The other faction, led by Google, wanted to completely destroy this separation and make web pages into rich web apps that would ensure that you could only view the content in exactly the form that the authors intended. The main goal of this was to make it hard to distinguish content from ads and therefore make it hard to automatically remove ads.
Do you have any sources for this claim? Or is this your opinion? I'm just interested in the subject and would like to learn more.
There is javascript and HTML5.
I imagine that people who write shitty mobile app code, also write shitty mobile web code. I think web code is safer, because browser code is more highly scrutinized, and sandboxing is a good feature, but I don't think you should expect it to hog less memory, if anything it will be more.
Browsers are perfectly capable of uploading photos. It's not 1997 anymore.
The web started with content and formatting bundled together in html. Then we got tools like css, javascript, xm, json, web components, etc, that allowed (but didn't force) us to separate content and formatting.
Separating content and formatting is better for consumers and also developers/ Even google does it in their own pages.
I'm really not sure exactly what you are referring to. Is there a particular standard that Apple supported and Google opposed?
Because I think what you are talking about is actually the standard way of organizing web content, but some people elect to use older paradigms that browsers still support.
This insurance system is broken if it needs the person at fault to have insurance.
It doesn't *need* it. But if it is the case that we don't want a system where a person can get screwed by not having health insurance *AND* the taxi they are injured in also doesn't have insurance, and we want to fix this by forcing the taxi drivers to have insurance, then I would say we probably don't want a hole in this safety net mechanism for non-taxis. This also applies to non-health insurance claims (e.g. damage to other cars, etc).
And what I meant as other requirement are things like knowledge tests which I have seen that are required in countries like England or Germany. I don't see why those countries should dump that requirement just because Uber has appeared, and I don't see why regular drivers should have to follow with them in other to be in the same category.
I suppose it matters what knowledge is required to be a taxi driver in a particular city. I don't doubt that some cities may require taxi drivers to possess some special knowledge that regular drivers don't need, and I'm fine with those cities having those requirements if they are necessary. If the knowledge is just something like "know your way around the city", then I think Uber's mobile app (along with any GPS) pretty much removes the need for that skill like how calculators removed the need for people to be good at arithmetic.
In the places I have used uber, some drivers had not even lived in the city very long, but their phone told them exactly where to go without any problems. As far as I can tell, the basic skills of a taxi driver are owning a car and knowing how to drive it. Navigation is done by machines, and the actual driving probably will be one day as well, and we won;t even have taxi drivers anymore.
Why not put in the law that taxi drivers should have enough insurance to cover themselves and their passengers and let regular drivers choose whatever insurance level they want? Why should a regular driver face the same requirements as a taxi driver?
For all the same reasons you might want insurance in a taxi, you probably also want insurance when riding in a friends car. It's not like medical bills are more expensive when injured in a taxi.
Let's not forget that in some other places those requirements could involve more, and your solution would be to place the same requirements to regular drivers.
Yes it would.
My solution would require the same level of coverage, meaning that if a regular driver causes the same damage as a taxi, their insurance would pay out the same amount to cover the same things. That doesn't mean that both sets of insurance would come with the same price. It just means that if you are injured, you don't need to hope and pray that the person at fault has good taxi level insurance.
I am saying that we remove the legal difference between commercial and non-commercial driving, and have that be a distinction that insurance companies can choose to make. Just like how they make distinctions between drivers based on any number of other factors like age, health, mileage driven per month, driving record, type of of their vehicle, etc. "commercial driver" can just be one more check box they can tick.
I'm not even sure what the extra risk about being a commercial driver even is. Is it just that they are on the road more? If so, they non-commercial drivers who are on the road a lot should pay more too. I don't even know why we have this distinction, but it should be insurance companies deciding how much extra if anything commercial drivers should pay.
I'm sure some people disagree with compulsory insurance, but it is not something I am *just now* mandating.
And you are still treating uber and taxi drivers the same and distinct from regular driver, except that this time it would be the insurance company that makes the distinction, and not the law.
The private sector insurance companies are where taxi drivers and regular driver *should* be treated differently, because making an assessment of risk is the job of insurance companies not government bureaucrats. Society benefits from having simpler laws. They are already adjusting rates for age, health, type of vehicle, and previous driving records. They probably also factor in mileage driven.
All that matters is that they are covered. The law shouldn't mandate *how* they are covered. If some insurance company thinks taxi drivers are less risky than regular drivers, whats the problem? That should be for them to decide. Markets can't solve every problem, but this is exactly the kind of problem they are perfect for solving.
Typically, people doing something commercially are held to a higher standard than people doing something for personal reasons, so I'd expect the minimum insurance to be higher for commercial drivers.
That is typically true, but it could be for each insurance company to decide who they want to insure and for how much money.
That aside, lots of auto insurance policies have provisions making them invalid if the insured is driving commercially.
They can make that distinction if they want to.
Sometimes you can get a better deal by accepting restrictions. People buy these because they're cheaper than the same policy that does cover commercial driving. Then some of these people drive commercially (such as for Uber), and are effectively driving uninsured. Somebody needs to stop that, and a company that relies on commercial drivers is a good somebody to pick.
People are dishonest about all kinds of things when it comes to getting auto insurance. My mom lies about who the primary driver is on all the cars in our family to get a better rate. This is not a problem specific to taxis or uber.
But as I said. If the insurance laws are simpler, then we don't need special laws for taxis. We can just make two laws. "You must buy insurance." and "You must not lie to your insurance company."
taxi drivers and regular drivers are currently not treated the same, but they *could* be from a legal standpoint, and I think that would solve a lot of these problems.
The government could simply require a minimum level of insurance for all drivers (e.g. covers X things up to Y dollars, etc), and the price of that insurance would be determined by each insurance company for each individual driver probably based on things like amount of time spent on the road, type of vehicle, whether it is a taxi or uber car, etc.
In this way we wouldn't need special rules for insurance for taxi drivers, which makes sense, considering the sorts of damage that is caused by a taxi accident is basically the same as the damage caused by a car driven by a friend.
I hope we get a efficient system that is fair for everybody in each jurisdiction. I would like to see simple and effective insurance laws that don't require special consideration for taxi drivers. I would like to know that I am protected by insurance regardless of what kind of car I get in, whether it's a taxi, and uber, a semi-truck or a friend's car.
I would like a system where the supply of taxi drivers meets the demand at any given time, even if this means prices fluctuate to incentivize an increase in supply. By the same token I would like low demand to incentivize lowering supply. There is no sense in having a bunch of taxi drivers on the street with nothing to do.
I would like a taxi system where the fees are predictable beforehand, and an hailing a taxi can be done easily.
I really don;t care if uber is punished out of existence or not, but I would like another uber-like company to take it's place. I don't think uber is a "nice" company, but I don't think society served well by keeping outdated and inefficient laws that uber is trying to fight.
Maybe uber should be punished. Fine I don't care. What I want to see is the laws and taxi ecosystem change to one that is better than what exists, and I am rooting for uber as an agent of change.
If uber was in the driver seat, it would be the uber CEO in the judge's chair at the trials. I can't say for certain that Uber would turn down that opportunity if it were presented to them (they are a corporation afterall), but I don't think that's what they are trying to do.
If their plan was to specifically avoid being defined as a taxi service by the law, then they absolutely should be defending their actions by saying they are not a taxi service. A jury could determine that they have miscalculated what the definition of a taxi service is, in which case they should be punished. Or a jury could decide that they did in fact specifically avoid the legal definition of a taxi service, and they should not be punished.
Regardless of the outcomes of all these uber trials all over the world answer the questions "Is uber a taxi service?", bigger questions need to be answered, such as "What *should* a taxi service be defined as?" and "Is there a better way to regulate taxi services?". And new laws will probably result from each community answering these questions for themselves.
Rosa Parks didn't say "I 'm not actually black, so you shouldn't arrest me for sitting in the wrong seat on the bus".
I don't what if anything Rosa Parks said. But she probably thought that she was not an inferior person deserving of a lesser seat on the bus. I don't think Uber is taking the position that taxi services should be regulated but that they shouldn't be. I think their position is that those regulations shouldn't exist for anybody, including regular taxi services. So in this admittedly ridiculous analogy, uber is like Rosa Parks saying "We (uber and taxi companies) are not "black people", we are humans that should be treated equally with other humans (regular drivers)".
The laws decide what legally constitutes a taxi service, and the courts decide if Uber is in compliance with those local laws in every jurisdiction they operate.
No one has the "right" to break a law by the definitions of rights and laws. What everyone *can* do, is decide to break the law and accept whatever consequences arise from that decision.
You certainly *can* (try to) murder me if you want. I will try to stop you, but there is no law of the universe that prevents you from trying. If you are willing to accept the consequences of your actions, then go right ahead. The government may convict you of murder, or they may find you not guilty depending on what you can convince a jury to believe.
If you can't accept the consequences for your actions, then I suggest you rethink your actions.
I don't think you actually read my post, seeing as you seem to think I am arguing something different than I am. You can be comforted that I will be punished when you achieve the right not to be offended.
Restricting the supply of taxi drivers may drive up the price of taxis, but this doesn't necessarily help taxi drivers. The artificial increase in price also leads to the costs of becoming a taxi driver becoming higher. Often the taxi drivers don't actually own the medallions, but merely pay a large percentage of what they are paid to the entity renting a medallion to them. Or even if the drivers manage to buy a medallion, the market value of the medallion is reflected by their profit potential.
Artificially increasing the cost of providing a service, is not a viable strategy to make providing that service more profitable. All it actually does is disincentivize availability of that service. I don;t think we actually want to disincentivize the supply of taxis. I would argu that what we want is a supply that matches the demand at any given time. And honestly Uber does a great job of matching supply and demand, through supply/demand pricing.
People actually openly participate in jury nullification as a means of protest, both against unjust laws and to challenge the illegality of jury nullification itself. But 1. Jurors are acting as extensions of the legal system (the government) in a trial. and 2. Not all trials have jurors.
The other cab companies represent uncle tom's in this analogy. They are other black people that want to follow the rules and think uber should be punished for breaking them. Uber wants to be treated like other white people (regular drivers that don't need extra insurance, etc).
The jury has the right to make any decision it wants, regardless of what the law says.
It depends on the state. Some states (I believe my own state California is one of them), it is actually illegal to make a decision as a juror that ignores the law. Obviously nobody can really know what your motives are and you can lie about them. But if you openly disobey the judges orders to make decisions based on what the law is (rather than what you think the law should be), you can be held in contempt of court and jailed.
Corporations are pretty stoic. They don't even have faces.
Well then the playing field is already level.
It depends on the type of trial. We have jury trials. We also have trials that are decided by judges. The government is made up of people. When people are acting as jurors, they are acting as an extension of the government, just like police officers and judges are people acting as extensions of the government.
NO they don't have the *right* to disobey the law, as per the definitions of rights and laws. What they *can* do is decide to break the law and deal with whatever consequences arise out of it.