You implied that licensing eliminated assaults. He proved you wrong. If you want to claim they reduce them, rather than eliminate them, we'll demand to see your proof.
Nah, it was about the industrialized North controlling the raw resources of the south. Slavery is a convenient surrogate to ignore the oppression by the winners. Like every other war, the cause was written by the winners.
If you expatriate and thus no longer derive "income" from US sources, they still hunt you down for ten years to tax you some more... in effect they nail you with a serious exit tax.
In case anyone reads this, it is 100% wrong. He is lying to make a point. No, I'm not going to debate the point with him. I am an expat. I had to deal with it more than him. He just read something once that was a lie to make a point, and he's repeating it. But he's a zealot. So there's no point addressing this to him. I just don't want anyone else reading it and thinking that's correct. It's not.
That's why it's inconsistent. The heirarchy of liberties is weak. They are all equal, and conflicting. Right to carry a gun? Not when you are on someone's property who doesn't want it. So their property rights override your personal rights. But when you put it that way, they object.
I'm a socialist libertarian. The problem with libertarians is that they think the government should be small. I believe it should be effective (and with that, it would be small if it were ideally effective).
In practice, libertarians are also anti-democracy. Because they don't trust anyone else with the vote. Benevolent dictatorship is the libertarian ideal. Though sometimes they call it a "constitutional" democracy, where the constitution eliminates the power of the vote.
The Libertarian philosophy is the most self-consistent of all available.
So, does a person have the right to carry a gun on them in public? What about in private? Must they notify the landowner if requested? Why does the ownership of the land trump the personal liberty to carry a gun?
Is abortion murder, or a medical procedure?
Libertarians fight over such issues amongst themselves, so it's not very self consistent. The self consistent libertarian philosophy is the one based on property having rights, but people don't have rights. When you over-simplify to that abominable extreme, it agrees with 90% of the Libertarian philosophy, and is self-consistent. But highly impractical.
Well, Blame Democrats has been the motto of the previous 20 years. The Democrats just learned it from the Republicans. But it's ok when it's "your side" using it against the "other guys".
Cities aren't measured by the city lines, but the metro area. For example, L.A. is a small city in a large metro area. So the metro area is usually what people mean.
Government initially regulated transportation for hire for legitimate safety reasons;
There is a long, sordid, history of abuses associated with taxi and limousine services, tour buses and so on.
Government regulations on cars for "safety" existed before car crashes existed. Look at the requirements for the first driver's licenses. Driving tests came about many years after licensing started, so the first ones couldn't have been about safety.
[...] a CDL [...]is required if you're carrying cargo or passengers for a fee.
Can undercover cops go hitchhiking, and offer you a $20 for gas at the end of the trip, and if you take it, arrest you for driving without a valid license?
Do accident statistics have a handy "works for Uber" column now?
They don't even have a column for suicide (thank the Christians for that one). So someone who gets drunk or takes pills, leaves a suicide note, then hops in the car, hits max speed and drives into (or off) a cliff will be properly marked as "DUI and speed-related". These statistics are used to push for lower limits on speed and drinking, when neither of those rules would have any effect on someone deliberately trying to kill themselves.
the drivers do not receive special scrutiny above and beyond a normal driver,
Where? Everywhere I've lived, Taxis needed a commercial license. That requires drug testing (from federal rules), and hearing and extra vision tests (from state rules) for the places I've held a commercial driver's license.
This is America, we want both! No middle (not in politics, no middle class). You are either inside the system, or outside the system, and that will continue until those outside the system revolt and we get Civil War II (coming to gaming stores near you).
I think that's not correct. There are lots of women fleeing some countries where their choices are marry, or get a job at McDonald's (or the local equivelent). So they leave, and turn to prostitution because they chose to not work a lifetime in McD's. They see a few years in prostitution as a "good" thing, and a choice they made to avoid a lifetime in McD's.
But for whatever reason, the media seems to stick to the idea that they are unwilling participants, even if 90% could walk up to the nearest police man (and there are plenty), confess to violating terms of their visa, and ask for help being deported "home" and be working in McD's by the end of the week. And they choose not to.
Having heard Uber's reps more or less state that the law doesn't apply to them because they don't like it,
The Uber reps are claiming that the laws the cab companies are quoting are wrong. Cab companies want them regulated as taxi services (provably the wrong thing in almost all jurisdictions). Uber wants to be regulated as a hitchhiker service, with a tip. In reality, they should be somewhere in between, a private car service, where the driver doesn't need a medallion, but they should have commercial endorsements for commercial activities.
So Uber's response, is "we'll treat ourselves in the best legal way (hitchhiker service) until proven otherwise." It's a legally sound stance, many larger companies have done the same thing.
Basically, they're skirting around the law and claiming the law doesn't apply because they don't want it to.
They are abiding by the law. Just not the set of laws the cab cartels want them operating under.
They like to couch themselves as an alternative to taxis, but they don't want to be on the same playing field as them.
Hitchhiking is an alternative to taxis, and doesn't have any of the rules around it taxis do.
Think of couch surfing. Paid couch surfing isn't regulated like a hotel. You don't pay the special hotel taxes. None of the hotel regulations apply to taking $20 for someone crashing in a spare bedroom for a night. Uber's point is that if nobody has a problem with that - the hotel cartels aren't spending millions to come after couchsurfing.com or whatever, then why would anyone have a problem with "monetizing" hitchhiking?
Slashdot Mirror
Dead like me?
You implied that licensing eliminated assaults. He proved you wrong. If you want to claim they reduce them, rather than eliminate them, we'll demand to see your proof.
Nah, it was about the industrialized North controlling the raw resources of the south. Slavery is a convenient surrogate to ignore the oppression by the winners. Like every other war, the cause was written by the winners.
If you expatriate and thus no longer derive "income" from US sources, they still hunt you down for ten years to tax you some more... in effect they nail you with a serious exit tax.
In case anyone reads this, it is 100% wrong. He is lying to make a point. No, I'm not going to debate the point with him. I am an expat. I had to deal with it more than him. He just read something once that was a lie to make a point, and he's repeating it. But he's a zealot. So there's no point addressing this to him. I just don't want anyone else reading it and thinking that's correct. It's not.
If they have a monopoly, people will either do it or not fly. And people have put up with worse to fly. So your example fails.
That's why it's inconsistent. The heirarchy of liberties is weak. They are all equal, and conflicting. Right to carry a gun? Not when you are on someone's property who doesn't want it. So their property rights override your personal rights. But when you put it that way, they object.
I'm a socialist libertarian. The problem with libertarians is that they think the government should be small. I believe it should be effective (and with that, it would be small if it were ideally effective).
In practice, libertarians are also anti-democracy. Because they don't trust anyone else with the vote. Benevolent dictatorship is the libertarian ideal. Though sometimes they call it a "constitutional" democracy, where the constitution eliminates the power of the vote.
The Libertarian philosophy is the most self-consistent of all available.
So, does a person have the right to carry a gun on them in public? What about in private? Must they notify the landowner if requested? Why does the ownership of the land trump the personal liberty to carry a gun?
Is abortion murder, or a medical procedure?
Libertarians fight over such issues amongst themselves, so it's not very self consistent. The self consistent libertarian philosophy is the one based on property having rights, but people don't have rights. When you over-simplify to that abominable extreme, it agrees with 90% of the Libertarian philosophy, and is self-consistent. But highly impractical.
Ah, so we've moved on from abusing the word "liberal" so much we've invented new boogeymen, and call the new one "neo-liberal"?
Well, Blame Democrats has been the motto of the previous 20 years. The Democrats just learned it from the Republicans. But it's ok when it's "your side" using it against the "other guys".
10 years ago, they were closer to the same. Liberal meant smaller unobtrusive government. Libertarian meant toll sidewalks and "blacks only" toilets.
Cities aren't measured by the city lines, but the metro area. For example, L.A. is a small city in a large metro area. So the metro area is usually what people mean.
Not all are requirements in most places that I know of.
Government initially regulated transportation for hire for legitimate safety reasons;
There is a long, sordid, history of abuses associated with taxi and limousine services, tour buses and so on.
Government regulations on cars for "safety" existed before car crashes existed. Look at the requirements for the first driver's licenses. Driving tests came about many years after licensing started, so the first ones couldn't have been about safety.
Now, the regulated cab drivers rip off consumers, and the unregulated ones are more fair and provide better service.
[...] a CDL [...]is required if you're carrying cargo or passengers for a fee.
Can undercover cops go hitchhiking, and offer you a $20 for gas at the end of the trip, and if you take it, arrest you for driving without a valid license?
Do accident statistics have a handy "works for Uber" column now?
They don't even have a column for suicide (thank the Christians for that one). So someone who gets drunk or takes pills, leaves a suicide note, then hops in the car, hits max speed and drives into (or off) a cliff will be properly marked as "DUI and speed-related". These statistics are used to push for lower limits on speed and drinking, when neither of those rules would have any effect on someone deliberately trying to kill themselves.
The statistics don't work. Uber or otherwise.
the drivers do not receive special scrutiny above and beyond a normal driver,
Where? Everywhere I've lived, Taxis needed a commercial license. That requires drug testing (from federal rules), and hearing and extra vision tests (from state rules) for the places I've held a commercial driver's license.
They never could. Thats why the exec wished for a smear campaign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
Wikipedia says so: "Nader claims that GM responded to his criticism of the Corvair by trying to destroy Nader's image and to silence him."
I thought you knew how to use Google. I can send you the LMGTFY link, if you like. That was the first result.
The full context sis that he'd wish he could do it, because he feels the media has been unfair. Not that it was a plan, or even a serious thought.
This is America, we want both! No middle (not in politics, no middle class). You are either inside the system, or outside the system, and that will continue until those outside the system revolt and we get Civil War II (coming to gaming stores near you).
I think that's not correct. There are lots of women fleeing some countries where their choices are marry, or get a job at McDonald's (or the local equivelent). So they leave, and turn to prostitution because they chose to not work a lifetime in McD's. They see a few years in prostitution as a "good" thing, and a choice they made to avoid a lifetime in McD's.
But for whatever reason, the media seems to stick to the idea that they are unwilling participants, even if 90% could walk up to the nearest police man (and there are plenty), confess to violating terms of their visa, and ask for help being deported "home" and be working in McD's by the end of the week. And they choose not to.
So, basically Uber wants to play in the game, but wants to have no liability.
You say that like it's a "bad" thing. But that's the goal of every corporation. So, by your definition, every corporation is "bad", right?
Having heard Uber's reps more or less state that the law doesn't apply to them because they don't like it,
The Uber reps are claiming that the laws the cab companies are quoting are wrong. Cab companies want them regulated as taxi services (provably the wrong thing in almost all jurisdictions). Uber wants to be regulated as a hitchhiker service, with a tip. In reality, they should be somewhere in between, a private car service, where the driver doesn't need a medallion, but they should have commercial endorsements for commercial activities.
So Uber's response, is "we'll treat ourselves in the best legal way (hitchhiker service) until proven otherwise." It's a legally sound stance, many larger companies have done the same thing.
Basically, they're skirting around the law and claiming the law doesn't apply because they don't want it to.
They are abiding by the law. Just not the set of laws the cab cartels want them operating under.
They like to couch themselves as an alternative to taxis, but they don't want to be on the same playing field as them.
Hitchhiking is an alternative to taxis, and doesn't have any of the rules around it taxis do.
Think of couch surfing. Paid couch surfing isn't regulated like a hotel. You don't pay the special hotel taxes. None of the hotel regulations apply to taking $20 for someone crashing in a spare bedroom for a night. Uber's point is that if nobody has a problem with that - the hotel cartels aren't spending millions to come after couchsurfing.com or whatever, then why would anyone have a problem with "monetizing" hitchhiking?