>Who voted for Kalanick? What gave him the right?
You could say people voted with their wallets.
You could say people voted with their wallets.
Money should never overwhelm the will of the people. I say this even though I hated the way taxis used to work, with the artificial limitation, and I love a chance to take a much more convenient app based ride, I really despise how they got away with violating at least any standard of reasonable behavior, but also they were apparently violating the law literally - one example being paying the hackers not to hack and not telling anyone.
It’s like the quote from the Chronicles of Riddick, “sometimes the only way to stop evil is not with good. You must confront it with another kind of evil”.
So the identity of the rent seekers at the top hasn't even changed. But you use an app now... so, yay?
I think anybody who takes a rent seekers' side over even the most despicable politician doesn't deserve to live in a Democracy.
This really turns taxi service into some great horror. Uber didn't cure cancer or even invent the Internet (nor is it cheaper than cabs in cities I've been in); they just made a marginal improvement in one form of transportation, partly by using massive wealth to take on losses and by imposing externalities on others: The cost of cars on the drivers, safety on the passengers, traffic on the rest of the city (a big reason for medallions, afaik, was to avoid the traffic jams that Uber creates in cities). Cabs worked fine for many years, and still do.
> It’s like the quote from the Chronicles of Riddick, “sometimes the only way to stop evil is not with good. You must confront it with another kind of evil”.
Evil? Cabs are evil? If we're getting our philosophy from the Chronicles of Riddick, it suddenly all makes sense. The better sources of philosophy would disagree.
So should anyone who wants be able to break laws and abuse people? If the only justification you need is that cab service isn't great, what good are laws?
You could say it, but that's not how democracy or legitimate government and lawmaking works. And in Uber's case, the wallets voting are a few investors who subsidized the customers.
What makes Uber legit? People support it.
Although I guess a government doesn't need the support of the people to maintain legitimacy, it just needs to be able to maintain a monopoly on violence. And if Uber had a monopoly on the taxi industry maybe it wouldn't need the people's support either.
> What makes Uber legit? People support it.
Really? Uber has the legitimacy of government? Wow.
Markets don't have elections and most politicians/bureaucrats don't exactly have the competency to decide what should be good for everyone. Letting people vote with their wallets has largely worked.
Of course no system is perfect, but this is as fair as it gets.
The excellent Cuban health system achieves the same for roughly 1/10th the cost.
Which part of "double the price same product" counts largely "worked" and why do you want me to give up my cheaper system for yours?
Furthermore, don’t ever say “excellent Cuban” anything. There’s a reason why people try to cross shark infested waters on dingy rafts from Cuba to Key West, Florida. People vote with their feet and wallets.
If only I could walk into a health care facility and see the prices posted on the wall for various procedures, or get an estimate upfront, the way I can at any auto garage...
This issue has nothing to do with central planning. Free market theory does not support legal anarchy. It really should work that businesses can do whatever they want, irrespective of the law? Can they murder? Steal? Damage your property and life? It's absurd.
Problem is some wallets are empty and some are full, whereas in a democracy every vote has the same weight.