If a government does one thing in a right and proper manner, then everything they do is right and proper?
I might remind you that the Nazis banned smoking, while also initiating wars of looting and mass murdering those who they found tiobe undesirable.
Capitalism only fails when bad actors are not allowed to fail. Saying Capitalism doesn't work because of the government reaction to the banking crisis is like saying nature doesn't work because our domesticated animals can't survive in the wild.
Then why do used goods sell for more than zero?
Economists aren't scientists precisely because they fail to update their theory to account for observation. Nearly all economists fall into this trap. Fortunately, with machine learning, we now have a chance to create a theory of economics that actually matches reality.
It really doesn't. The IR peak for CO2 is very, very sharp, meaning it doesn't hold in much of the spectrum t all, no matter what the concentration is. Think of it like laying out in the tundra, freezing to death, having a ten meter tall stack of washrags on your chest. Then you double the height of the washrag stack, only to find you aren't any better off. What you need is a nice, broad, nonsaturated blanket, like water vapor, which, surprise surprise, humans force into the air in an ever increasing amount thanks to construction of non-permeable surfaces that catch rainwater as well as irrigation and even producing more by burning hydrocarbons.
Even explains the "pause" in global warming, as the global economy has slowed, there has been less construction worldwide overall, and some construction has even been torn down (see places like Detroit).
Only difference is that water vapor is in a tight equilibrium, which would mean that any warming is reversible, but of course that doesn't fit the agenda of the socialists in environmentalists clothing, who want to destroy capitalism as an ends unto itself (witness their hatred for nuclear power, which produces no CO2).
Reductio ad absurdum. You claimed that higher prices don't hurt you, which is patently wrong. They just haven't hurt you enough for you to notice. Others sure have.
Sounds like you have a problem with insurance, then, not Uber. Perhaps the insurance industry needs some more regulation, or more likely, need to be sued until they figure out who is liable.
Oh yeah, and if you got hit by a drunk driver who got tired of waiting after two hours for a taxi to come pick him up? Would you feel that? Ubers get there in a couple of minutes, and there are swarms of them.
What if, instead of being 2-4 times as much as the ride would have been in a free market, it was 100 or 1000 times as much? Would you have felt harmed then? If you were trying to start a small taxi business and spent $50,000 only to have it shut down by the government at a 90% loss, would you feel harmed then?
Do you have a peripheral nerve disorder or something? Because if seems like you can't feel pain at all.
Uber is special, for the reason I mentioned. Not that gypsy cabs should be regulated either. If I want to offer someone a ride for pay, that is a private transaction between me and another person. The government has no business butting in.
If an Uber driver runs over someone, how is that different from a regular person running over someone? Or are you saying that people need to be punished for trying to make a little money?
"Even airlines skip on maintenance. This has already killed people. These airlines still exist, making your point unconvincing at best."
What, exactly is the point of regulations, then? The airlines are probably the most heavily regulated industry in the nation, but they are STILL having these problems? Note that those regulations also shield the companies from liability--you can't sue someone if they were in compliance and win. They also make sure that new companies can't come in, and helps to prevent new paradigms from being tried (flying cars have been shot down by the FAA repeatedly).
"And now you are pulling numbers out of your arse. There is a reason why insurance companies insist on commercial insurances for professional drivers."
Show me where there is a number in that post. Yes, there is a reason why professional drivers have commercial insurance, but only when they are in a commercial vehicle. A big rig driver doesn't have to have commercial insurance on his personal car. The Uber car switches back and forth from being a professional to a personal vehicle.
"Uber has problems with the law even in cities/countries that go without a medallion (i.e. anybody who has a commercial driver license and commercial insurance can have their own taxi)."
Yes, because the taxi companies have bought off the politicians! Look at Texas, and see a state where they failed to do that. The people love these services so much that the money of the lobbyists has been drowned out. This is a good thing.
Then there is a lawsuit, and the courts will sort it out. These kinds of disputes happen ALL THE TIME in insurance. Why do you think there are so many lawyers advertizing on TV with tough guy names like "The Hammer" or "The Gorilla" all talking about going after insurance companies?
That's not reductio ad absurdum, that's a non-sequitur. And I didn't say that all regulation is bad. I said that laws that harm the people are not just, and we have no moral obligation to follow them, as so many here seem to assert. Yes, everyone needs to play by the same rules. In the case of the Aztecs, do you think that should mean that the ruling class should have submitted their own children for slaughter, or that they should have just stopped slaughtering children altogether?
"I use Uber and Lyft to get around sometimes and the number of times I've gotten into a car with a check engine light on is astounding."
The check engine light can come on for any manner of things, including things that are very expensive to fix, but have no effect on safety. You can't judge the condition of a car by whether or not it is on.
And as for reviews, the drivers can't see them. Uber obfuscates them.
"And in the case of the Yellow Cabs, they do it amazingly well."
They really don't. At least not where I live. Ever get in a cab that was dragging its muffler along the ground behind it? A friend of mine did. When he asked the driver about it, he said he had complained to the owners, but they refused to fix it. An Uber driver whose car was making such a clatter wouldn't dare to get on the road, as they would get terrible ratings as a result and wind up getting deactivated.
"How does anyone know that the brakes need service"
Not a car guy, eh? Here's a hint: that terrible screeching sound you are hearing every time you hit the breaks means you need to get new pads, IF you haven't already destroyed the rotors.
As for rear drum breaks, they are only an assist. If they go out, it just makes the front breaks wear faster.
I support the rights of the people, including their right to free enterprise without interference from men with guns, whether they be banditos or g-men.
I'm not talking about gypsy cabs, I'm talking about Ubers, who are tracked by GPS, along with their riders, and as a result, can't rape or murder anyone while working without getting caught. And don't talk to me about the guy in India. He wasn't working when he raped that woman.
Might as well have regulations on stores because the employees might rape or murder the customers.
Right, so if I go fly a plane with no training or testing it's ok, because I'll only do it once?
Vehicle inspections don't look at things that are damaging to the vehicle, they look at things that could endanger other drivers. As such, your check engine light comment is irrelevant, as is the oil changing. The emissions and brakes, sure, but guess what? Those are things the RIDERS will notice, and they will get bad rating for it and get deactivated before too long.
Further, lots of Uber drivers don't actually drive that much. Certainly not more than, say, someone who commutes in a major city, or who goes on road trips. If you are going to harp on this further, I would suggest a better system would be to have inspections based on miles driven, rather that periods of time elapsed.
And in any event, you are ignoring the elephant in the room, the enormously expensive medallions/good-old boy "regulations" that price everyone out of the market and create artificial scarcity.
When the policy is or isn't in effect is the central point of the policy. That's like saying that a life insurance policy not paying out on a suicide is "fine print". The driver was personally liable in that case. And also, I should add, no more likely to be the cause of such a tragedy than any other driver. Should all drivers be required to carry million dollar policies?
No, meat packing laws were written after "The Jungle" was published, something you are no doubt referencing. Each case of those were, indeed, written by politicians, but only AFTER some tragedy or news article or book brought the subject into the full view of the people, where they demanded action. This is a case only in the vast MINORITY of regulations, most of which you have already named.
Just because a government makes a law against killing babies doesn't mean that every law they create is legitimate. Read up on the lobbying industry. They write practically every piece of legislation that is introduced. You think they do this for the good of the people?
Reductio ad absurdum is NOT a logical fallacy. It only makes clear the problems inherent in a person's position by taking the position to the extreme and examining the consequences, showing that their position creates a similar but lesser consequence.
You don't understand politics. You see, politicians are largely bullies, and all bullies are cowards. They fear losing their position. Show them anger, or even figuratively bloody their nose, and they will usually change their policies. As such, there is a spectrum between b and c, which includes things like nonviolent protests (including where such protests are illegal a la Ghandi), and active defiance of the law, which worked in Austin to make it de facto legal to smoke marijuana in public (the police have been instructed not to enforce that law due to popular demand and popular defiance of the law).
"please enlighten me how requiring to pass a test that you fit to transport others"
What is a person going to do as an Uber driver that would hurt others that he couldn't do just driving himself or his friends around? If there is a danger posed by an Uber driver, then the same danger is posed by regular drivers, and EVERYONE should be subjected to the same tests. Don't punish people for carrying out commerce. That is oppressive and hurts the people.
"requiring more frequent car inspections (since the cars are also used much more intensely)"
The cars are also owned by the drivers, who will notice when something is wrong, and get it addressed quickly, since they have to pay for it and don't want damage to compound. If the car is unsafe, the passenger will notice, give a bad rating, and complain to Uber, who will quickly deactivate the driver contengent on getting his car fixed. This is called market regulation, and it is 1000x as effective as corrupt government regulation. All you have to do is find a corrupt inspector and slip him five extra bucks and your car will pass ANY inspection.
"or an insurance that covers potential damage you your customers is oppressive and illegitimate?"
Uber already provides that, though there is a meme going around that they don't. It says they do right on their webpage. $1 million in commercial insurance, just like a regular cab.
"Good luck in your anarchy, which will end up in despotism after a while."
Freedom is like food for the people. Oppression is like starvation. You have to eat every now and then to live. Complaining about having to eat because you will just get hungry again later is not a legitimate complaint.
Slashdot Mirror
If a government does one thing in a right and proper manner, then everything they do is right and proper? I might remind you that the Nazis banned smoking, while also initiating wars of looting and mass murdering those who they found tiobe undesirable.
Capitalism only fails when bad actors are not allowed to fail. Saying Capitalism doesn't work because of the government reaction to the banking crisis is like saying nature doesn't work because our domesticated animals can't survive in the wild.
Then why do used goods sell for more than zero? Economists aren't scientists precisely because they fail to update their theory to account for observation. Nearly all economists fall into this trap. Fortunately, with machine learning, we now have a chance to create a theory of economics that actually matches reality.
Is it always 100% humidity in your world?
A 2% increase in average humidity would account for all observed warming over the last century.
That's not true at all, actually. It's right in the middle of the water "peak".
I suspect that you just made that up because it sounds like it would be an argument for your "side". Feel free to prove me wrong, though.
It really doesn't. The IR peak for CO2 is very, very sharp, meaning it doesn't hold in much of the spectrum t all, no matter what the concentration is. Think of it like laying out in the tundra, freezing to death, having a ten meter tall stack of washrags on your chest. Then you double the height of the washrag stack, only to find you aren't any better off. What you need is a nice, broad, nonsaturated blanket, like water vapor, which, surprise surprise, humans force into the air in an ever increasing amount thanks to construction of non-permeable surfaces that catch rainwater as well as irrigation and even producing more by burning hydrocarbons.
Even explains the "pause" in global warming, as the global economy has slowed, there has been less construction worldwide overall, and some construction has even been torn down (see places like Detroit).
Only difference is that water vapor is in a tight equilibrium, which would mean that any warming is reversible, but of course that doesn't fit the agenda of the socialists in environmentalists clothing, who want to destroy capitalism as an ends unto itself (witness their hatred for nuclear power, which produces no CO2).
Reductio ad absurdum. You claimed that higher prices don't hurt you, which is patently wrong. They just haven't hurt you enough for you to notice. Others sure have.
Sounds like you have a problem with insurance, then, not Uber. Perhaps the insurance industry needs some more regulation, or more likely, need to be sued until they figure out who is liable.
Oh yeah, and if you got hit by a drunk driver who got tired of waiting after two hours for a taxi to come pick him up? Would you feel that? Ubers get there in a couple of minutes, and there are swarms of them.
What if, instead of being 2-4 times as much as the ride would have been in a free market, it was 100 or 1000 times as much? Would you have felt harmed then? If you were trying to start a small taxi business and spent $50,000 only to have it shut down by the government at a 90% loss, would you feel harmed then?
Do you have a peripheral nerve disorder or something? Because if seems like you can't feel pain at all.
" but Uber is special so it gets a free pass"
Uber is special, for the reason I mentioned. Not that gypsy cabs should be regulated either. If I want to offer someone a ride for pay, that is a private transaction between me and another person. The government has no business butting in.
If an Uber driver runs over someone, how is that different from a regular person running over someone? Or are you saying that people need to be punished for trying to make a little money?
"Even airlines skip on maintenance. This has already killed people. These airlines still exist, making your point unconvincing at best."
What, exactly is the point of regulations, then? The airlines are probably the most heavily regulated industry in the nation, but they are STILL having these problems? Note that those regulations also shield the companies from liability--you can't sue someone if they were in compliance and win. They also make sure that new companies can't come in, and helps to prevent new paradigms from being tried (flying cars have been shot down by the FAA repeatedly).
"And now you are pulling numbers out of your arse. There is a reason why insurance companies insist on commercial insurances for professional drivers."
Show me where there is a number in that post. Yes, there is a reason why professional drivers have commercial insurance, but only when they are in a commercial vehicle. A big rig driver doesn't have to have commercial insurance on his personal car. The Uber car switches back and forth from being a professional to a personal vehicle.
"Uber has problems with the law even in cities/countries that go without a medallion (i.e. anybody who has a commercial driver license and commercial insurance can have their own taxi)."
Yes, because the taxi companies have bought off the politicians! Look at Texas, and see a state where they failed to do that. The people love these services so much that the money of the lobbyists has been drowned out. This is a good thing.
That's good then. Sensible, self consistent, consistent with current law, and non-biased is what you want in regulation.
Then there is a lawsuit, and the courts will sort it out. These kinds of disputes happen ALL THE TIME in insurance. Why do you think there are so many lawyers advertizing on TV with tough guy names like "The Hammer" or "The Gorilla" all talking about going after insurance companies?
That's not reductio ad absurdum, that's a non-sequitur. And I didn't say that all regulation is bad. I said that laws that harm the people are not just, and we have no moral obligation to follow them, as so many here seem to assert. Yes, everyone needs to play by the same rules. In the case of the Aztecs, do you think that should mean that the ruling class should have submitted their own children for slaughter, or that they should have just stopped slaughtering children altogether?
"I use Uber and Lyft to get around sometimes and the number of times I've gotten into a car with a check engine light on is astounding."
The check engine light can come on for any manner of things, including things that are very expensive to fix, but have no effect on safety. You can't judge the condition of a car by whether or not it is on.
And as for reviews, the drivers can't see them. Uber obfuscates them.
"And in the case of the Yellow Cabs, they do it amazingly well."
They really don't. At least not where I live. Ever get in a cab that was dragging its muffler along the ground behind it? A friend of mine did. When he asked the driver about it, he said he had complained to the owners, but they refused to fix it. An Uber driver whose car was making such a clatter wouldn't dare to get on the road, as they would get terrible ratings as a result and wind up getting deactivated.
"How does anyone know that the brakes need service"
Not a car guy, eh? Here's a hint: that terrible screeching sound you are hearing every time you hit the breaks means you need to get new pads, IF you haven't already destroyed the rotors.
As for rear drum breaks, they are only an assist. If they go out, it just makes the front breaks wear faster.
I support the rights of the people, including their right to free enterprise without interference from men with guns, whether they be banditos or g-men.
I'm not talking about gypsy cabs, I'm talking about Ubers, who are tracked by GPS, along with their riders, and as a result, can't rape or murder anyone while working without getting caught. And don't talk to me about the guy in India. He wasn't working when he raped that woman.
Might as well have regulations on stores because the employees might rape or murder the customers.
Right, so if I go fly a plane with no training or testing it's ok, because I'll only do it once?
Vehicle inspections don't look at things that are damaging to the vehicle, they look at things that could endanger other drivers. As such, your check engine light comment is irrelevant, as is the oil changing. The emissions and brakes, sure, but guess what? Those are things the RIDERS will notice, and they will get bad rating for it and get deactivated before too long.
Further, lots of Uber drivers don't actually drive that much. Certainly not more than, say, someone who commutes in a major city, or who goes on road trips. If you are going to harp on this further, I would suggest a better system would be to have inspections based on miles driven, rather that periods of time elapsed.
And in any event, you are ignoring the elephant in the room, the enormously expensive medallions/good-old boy "regulations" that price everyone out of the market and create artificial scarcity.
"Fine print"
When the policy is or isn't in effect is the central point of the policy. That's like saying that a life insurance policy not paying out on a suicide is "fine print". The driver was personally liable in that case. And also, I should add, no more likely to be the cause of such a tragedy than any other driver. Should all drivers be required to carry million dollar policies?
No, meat packing laws were written after "The Jungle" was published, something you are no doubt referencing. Each case of those were, indeed, written by politicians, but only AFTER some tragedy or news article or book brought the subject into the full view of the people, where they demanded action. This is a case only in the vast MINORITY of regulations, most of which you have already named.
Just because a government makes a law against killing babies doesn't mean that every law they create is legitimate. Read up on the lobbying industry. They write practically every piece of legislation that is introduced. You think they do this for the good of the people?
Reductio ad absurdum is NOT a logical fallacy. It only makes clear the problems inherent in a person's position by taking the position to the extreme and examining the consequences, showing that their position creates a similar but lesser consequence.
You don't understand politics. You see, politicians are largely bullies, and all bullies are cowards. They fear losing their position. Show them anger, or even figuratively bloody their nose, and they will usually change their policies. As such, there is a spectrum between b and c, which includes things like nonviolent protests (including where such protests are illegal a la Ghandi), and active defiance of the law, which worked in Austin to make it de facto legal to smoke marijuana in public (the police have been instructed not to enforce that law due to popular demand and popular defiance of the law).
"please enlighten me how requiring to pass a test that you fit to transport others"
What is a person going to do as an Uber driver that would hurt others that he couldn't do just driving himself or his friends around? If there is a danger posed by an Uber driver, then the same danger is posed by regular drivers, and EVERYONE should be subjected to the same tests. Don't punish people for carrying out commerce. That is oppressive and hurts the people.
"requiring more frequent car inspections (since the cars are also used much more intensely)"
The cars are also owned by the drivers, who will notice when something is wrong, and get it addressed quickly, since they have to pay for it and don't want damage to compound. If the car is unsafe, the passenger will notice, give a bad rating, and complain to Uber, who will quickly deactivate the driver contengent on getting his car fixed. This is called market regulation, and it is 1000x as effective as corrupt government regulation. All you have to do is find a corrupt inspector and slip him five extra bucks and your car will pass ANY inspection.
"or an insurance that covers potential damage you your customers is oppressive and illegitimate?"
Uber already provides that, though there is a meme going around that they don't. It says they do right on their webpage. $1 million in commercial insurance, just like a regular cab.
"Good luck in your anarchy, which will end up in despotism after a while."
Freedom is like food for the people. Oppression is like starvation. You have to eat every now and then to live. Complaining about having to eat because you will just get hungry again later is not a legitimate complaint.
So might makes right? I think not, when that might is derived from the power of the people, but their voices are ignored.
People shouldn't be complaining about how Uber is violating the law, they should be complaining about how the law hurts the people!