The debate "Uber and similar services should be completely deregulated." was started by
August 30, 2018, 9:29 pm.
16 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 29 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
lachlan2 posted 13 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 2 arguments, Nemiroff posted 8 arguments to the disagreers part.
lachlan2, Samlum17 and 14 visitors agree.
Mediator, Kanwal, TheNewHuman, peoplesociety and 25 visitors disagree.
Any issues that uber has regarding their profitability are private matters and have nothing to do with politics. This is not a valid argument fpr regulating an industry or protecting cabs. No conceivable industry should be protected by government ever.
I haven't seen an explanation of why those sorts of regulations are used. but frankly, Uber bypasses most of the regulations that normal cab companies have to comply with letting them undercut the industry. and while I agree that the existing industry is broken, Uber has lots of problems of it's own that need to be solved.
traditional cabs need to be protected at least until Uber fixes these issues. but since Uber has no intention of doing so, we need more regulations on Uber, not less.
So what regulations should apply to uber? Most popular to Democrats are limiting their "permits" and restricting where they can go, like to airports. (This is also driven by 100% cronyism to protect the taxi drivers).
Do ypu agree with these restrictions?
you said they should be completely deregulated. you didn't say only relating to where they can go. and making sure that Uber checks those things require regulations. if uber thought they could get away with not checking at all, they would.
I think the sex offender registry should be abolished because it is cruel, unusual, ex post facto, and arbitrary. So that point is irrelevant to me. Start a thread on the topic if you want, but most people are too emotional and low iq to rationally debate the topic.
Historybuff those are conditions that would make it illegal to drive in the first place.
If a ride share company wants to do a criminal background check thats private matter.
Kind of irrelevant in proving why the state should limit tge number of uber drivers or control where they can go.
I never said it was a static number. whether it's a number (lol, that's just illogical), or an algorithm, it was chosen by a person.
the government uses algorithms too...
how about if they don't have a license? or if they don't have insurance? or if they are a sex offender? should those people be allowed to drive people around in their personal vehicles without any kind of oversight?
anyone with even a little bit of reasonable thought would say no. we need regulations to make sure that the people driving us around are safe to do so.
Many cities use permit laws to limit rode sharing. Nobody should need permission from the overloards to drive someone across town.
The price depends on capacity amd the classification of the car. Try using it.
Uber and Lyft are currently limited in cities with various tactics. Also many privitized transportation services have been banned in the past.
Why should they be regulated? The burden of proof lies on those who want to use force.
which law bars you from paying someone for a ride, employed anywhere?
do you even talk about price with an uber driver?
all I said was that there is a person in uber who decides when and how much surge pricing will go.
or are you saying it is bestowed from above? prices are set by people.
what I said was a simple fact. turning it into a general statement about something I never even thought about was all you.
what does any of this have to do with exploitation?
Its not a simplification. Look at history of government putting an end to ride sharibg services.
We're also literally debating under the fact that New York is limiting uber drivers. If an uber driver and myself want to make an exchange why should some overloards make us stop. Even of the population voted in the politicians it dosent become moral. You can't vote away another individual's natural rights and hide behind democracy when acused of being an authoritarian.
I mentioned the exploitation theory because you implied that capitalists decide the price structure arbitrarily, which they don't, and that workers get exploited.
also, you can 100% give or get a ride from anyone free from interference. your whole tyranny shtick is false
did I even mention exploitation here? I simply showed how your view of the world of "not being able to give money for a ride" is a simplification that ignores all other parties involved, whether corporate middle men or other people in the society who have conflicting concerns.
I have no idea what your responding to.
you mention nothing about the easy availability for you to enter in any form of contract or request for ride between 2 civilians.
nothing about the 3rd party you ignore in your simplification of reality that is necessary for libertarian philosophy.
I do not know of, or have an opinion about Marx exploitation theory, but I do see the theory of dodging questions and controlling the conversation you try to employ. will you ever actually respond to what I actually say?
Lol you think capitalists literally decode market prices?
It sounds like you believe in Karl Marx's exploitation theory, is that true?
"If everyone in the world voted against me that I can't give people rides for money, I still have the right to give rides for money. "
in which corner of any 1st world country can you not pay someone, friend or stranger, to give you a ride? of course when a corporation like uber comes into the middle of that transaction it is no longer just you and the driver.... the driver is getting a fraction of the amount you are willing to pay, and a centralized, unelected person is deciding when and how much surge pricing is.
imo government is far more transparent and accountable.
the only sophistry I see is your blanket dismissal of all of my points with your vague sophistry claim.
as to the taxi problem, it isnt unique which is why it was addressed long ago with the medallion system, as I clearly stated in the first sentence of my post.
the platitude about tyranny is nonsense in an environment with frequent elections, especially since none of these regulations are secret and are freely debated. if people don't like the policies, they can change the leadership easily.
Uber is already a step ahead of you. Now the app lets drivers rate and leave reviews of riders and riders leave revoews of drivers.
Again, you're 6th grade textbook view of markets is painful. Nobody volutarily gives up money unless they percieve they get something better in return. So customers make a profit as well. Trade makes both indoviduals better off.
The regulations around cabs also exist to protect people who use them. that the driver knows how to drive, has insurance, isn't sex offender etc. deregulation just makes things more dangerous and chaotic.
Ok regardless of the sophistry authorotarians use to make people think government is voluntary- democracy dosen't prevent tyranny. Just because most people in the city voted for a politician who voted to revoke individual freedom dosent suddenly turn it into a choice. If everyone in the world voted against me that I can't give people rides for money, I still have the right to give rides for money.
Besides that you stated a problem that existed with taxis as well, so its not a unique problem with ride share services it sounds like a problem with government owned roads.
do you know why cities enacted a medallion system? because even with the limits, cities like nyc still looked like a sea of yellow cabs clogging avenues as far as the eye can see.
everyone wants a cab instantly, but everyone also wants traffic to flow, and without regulations, traffic isnt gonna flow. that's why people CHOSE a government to set reasonable limits so that their city can FUNCTION, (unlike blind liberitarianism).
uber seeks to go around those limits, which will create gridlock. and although it will be profitable for the company to put more drivers who are always conveniently around the corner, the rest of the city has more pressing priorities.
I know.. then we'd be like, making our own choices as consumers and there would be advances in technology and better service. There might even be ... change!
why would anyone want that? that is a terrible idea.