Travis Shrugged
pandodaily.com
pandodaily.com
But even ignoring that, this article is crap. It basically claims that taxi licensing exists for safety and that Uber is jepordizing the safety of the average man for the benefit of the out-of-touch Silicon Valley elitist. Using facts to support this view, however, is difficult as there are none. Uber uses licensed car services that are licensed to transport passengers but not to pick up people without a certain amount of notice. The law that's being broken is saying "I want a car now" when the law says you have to say "I want a car in one hour" or otherwise hail a medallion vehicle. Presumably the licensing process for drivers of cabs and car service cars is around the same (drivers must not rape their passenger, to use the example from the article).
The worst side effect of letting car services pick up passengers immediately is that the artificial value of taxi medallions will return to its true value of zero dollars, making a lot of people very poor very quickly. There is an argument to limiting the number of cabs as a traffic-calming measure, but there is really no reason to discriminate based on vehicle type -- just implement a congestion charge and everything will work itself out.
Anyway, I like to see counterpoint articles on HN so I'm glad this was posted. But writing a whiney blog post about how Uber is sticking it to the poor man is tiresome.
At the same time yes there are laws that are laughable and truly need disruption. It's a real fine line to walk and this article points out the danger in the Randian attitude. I personally think that Rand did have some good points. Unfortunately the entire ideology is entirely one-dimensional and self-serving to the point where it ignores any and all counter arguments even if they really are more correct. This kind of mentality is dangerous in the same way religion is dangerous. Or can be dangerous. On the one hand you have you the moderates who are all about the good parts and loving everyone but stop short of holy war. On the other hand you have the zealots who take every word of their book as objective fact and will blow up a building to remind you.
Not everyone believes what I believe. Luckily, my beliefs do not require them to.
Instead of internalizing leftist propaganda and repeating it as fact, you should actually read the book.
"it ignores any and all counter arguments even if they really are more correct."
The most accurate characterization of that statement is that it is the exact opposite of what he philosophy actually advocates. Which you would know if you'd read Atlas Shrugged.
"On the other hand you have the zealots who take every word of their book as objective fact and will blow up a building to remind you."
In this case, you are the zealot who is taking lies told about the book as fact, and advocating violence against those who disagree with you.
And of course you have to characterize them in derogatory ways.
If Ayn Rand was so wrong, why can't you, and others like you, such as Paul Carr, be honest about what she actually said-- and address her actual arguments and philosophy, instead of lying about them and characterizing them in a derogatory fashion? Which is, as far as I'm concerned, nothing short of calling them names.
If you weren't a zealot, you'd have read the book to find out what it actually said. If you claim to have read the book, then lying about it makes you a zealot.
But worse, anti-intellectual. And that's what I really find offensive.
I would rather expect limiting the number of cabs to be traffic neutral; if anything, I think such a limit's biggest effect would be to reduce available parking and increase its costs. Increasing the number of cabs ought to reduce parking costs.
http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxi1.htm "Factors of Production in a Regulated Industry: New York Taxi Drivers and the Price for Better Service"
http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxi2.htm "Villain or Bogeyman? New York's Taxi Medallion System"
http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxi3.htm "Fixing New York City Taxi Service"
> Critics of the medallion system urge that "competition" in the form of additional cabs be let loose to spur better service. The analysis below finds that the growth of taxicab leasing over the last 15 years has had a far more pernicious effect on service quality than has the medallion system.
What you're talking about doesn't quite apply here- the laws are outdated, yes- the NYC taxi commission themselves agreed with that. But they were bound by contracts until February 2013 that meant they were unable to change the rules. Uber/Travis pushed ahead with their plans anyway, assuming that the powers that be would buckle.
That's stupid. And they're using being "disruptive" as an excuse for ignoring legal realities- and because they slap the label "disruptive" on it, plenty of people back them up. If I was an investor I would be pretty damn annoyed at what must be a lot of wasted cash on this endeavor, when anyone that bothered to investigate would have realised that failure was inevitable.
If you read further, it discusses how Uber basically screwed over yellow cab drivers by urging them to break existing rules, then ambushed them to try and retrieve the iPhones they gave out once they'd given up on the service. Make no mistake- Uber will have an extremely difficult time re-launching their UberTAXI product in NYC now that they've alienated cab drivers.
Not really. It is just buried in the long article (probably too deep).
TL;DR: he likes Rand, has the cover of one of her books as his Twitter avatar, and defends her ideas on the web.
The passage:
From an interview with the Washington Post:
“WP: I noticed your Twitter avatar is the cover of Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead.”
Kalanack: I don’t know what you’re talking about. [Laughs.] It’s less of a political statement. It’s just personally one of my favorite books. I’m a fan of architecture.”
One of the interesting stats I came across was that 50% of all California taxes are paid by 141,000 people (a state with 30mm inhabitants). This hit home as I had recently finished Atlas Shrugged. If 141,000 affluent people in CA went “on strike”, CA would be dThe fact of the matter is, on many occasions Paul Carr simply lies about what Rand said.
If Rand is so bad that someone should be embarrassed to be associated with her ideas--- why the need to lie about her ideas?
I'll answer that to you-- Rand's real crime is she demolish leftist anti-intellectualism and showed it for what it is.
It's not Rand they hate, its the mind. And their whole goal is to prevent you from being exposed to the ideas in Atlas Shrugged (which is why they focus on Rand, rather than the book, they don't even mention the book unless they have to and never the philosophy.)
Including the City of New York, who plan on selling over a thousand new medallions over the next few years and raising over $3B from the proceeds.
Taxi medallions have been a way for New York City to print money and to patch the budget with their own form of quantitative easing.
> Laws don’t exist merely to frustrate the business ambitions of coastal hipsters: They also exist to protect the more vulnerable members of society
No. They exist to skew the odds in favour of those who are already "in the business", or to line up the pockets of the friends or financial backers of those that make the laws.
(EDIT: some of them also exist to get reelected, and very few of them for what laws are really needed for - protecting private property)
The market is the only thing that can beat some sense to a politician - but only after he's used your tax money to fight back, and until after reality can not be denied any longer.
Take any eco 101 book to learn how the NYC medallion scheme is damaging and learn for yourself. Here's a good read which requires little domain knowledge:
http://www.worthpublishers.com/Catalog/uploadedFiles/Content...
(EDIT2: Downvote as much as you want. An article with that much politic biais deserves IMHO at least a matching response.)
Not very law and regulation is a huge conspiracy and in fact, most of the very unnecessary and self serving ones were created by Randians for Randians. Everyone hates the RIAA around here so I think they're the perfect example of this.
I really love how Randians selectively pick and choose examples to support their ideology that just happen to be totally hypocritical. If you read Ayn Rand without trying to fit it into your personal ideology it comes off sounding like it was written by a narcissistic sociopath (redundant, I know. Sociopaths are already narcissists)
It goes both ways, and I need no one to back me up. I am happy with my ideology, and I won't be coerced into anything I won't do out of my free will - with or without money. That is true freedom.
BTW even stretching that definition very far, I fail to see how it can include the RIAA, which lives at the expanse of our legal system, and which makes a lot more people life at its expanse.
Information goods are not in the domain of economy (even if some like to say they are non rival and non excludable like a public good) - they are not scarce resources.
And the free software movement has show that no special incentive was required to produce high quality information goods.
The answer to the RIAA is in the market - in the artists around us whose work we enjoy and can financially support. kickstarter movements now make that possible.
Fixed that for you. I've read the book. There's quite a bit of kicking freeloaders to the curb. My takeaway was that if you didn't want to be kicked to the curb by some tough guy, you shouldn't live at his expense. Which is really some lame contrapositive of "don't let freeloaders live at your expense".
It was a terrible piece of fiction, by the way. The characters were way too unbelievable.
You think about and describe bullying. The ideas in the book are closer to refusing voluntary servitude - ala Boetie: http://mises.org/document/1218/The-Politics-of-Obedience-The...
"States are more vulnerable than people think. They can collapse in an instant—when consent is withdrawn" says the above article. I'd correct that and say "the productive and growing economy" instead.
Atlas Shrugged is just a story explaining that, and providing a philosophy to leave with that in mind.
When we invent say the matter duplicator, things will change again. The core statement remains.
Personally, I really love how the comment you're replying to recommended a Paul Krugman text. You'd think if he were picking carefully he'd avoid Krugman to support his views? :)
Even Krugman can't deny reality. The medallion scheme of NYC is a bad thing for everyone - except the few happy medallion holders.
Amusing to see someone so cynical that they've become naïve.
- some of the laws were on the books so that politicians can get reelected.
- and that here might also be some honest politicians in there, trying to do the good thing such as repealing crappy laws, and enforcing property and self defence laws
But in this lemon market I think they are crowded out by the standard politicians.
The proportions must vary - with some places like Alberta acting as a beacon for the rest of the world - but my hopes aren't high. Freedom seems to be regressing on a global scale. Some people have much to gain with Agenda 21 and the likes.
Even a textbook extract from Krugman saying the very same thing (!!) can't help if the leftist had already decided which facts he will deign considering.
One great example of this: Alan Greenspan, who had previously been a huge Randian, admitted that his hands off regulatory policy had been a mistake. His belief that banks' self-interest would keep them from destroying themselves was wrong.[1]
Now I know I've probably opened a can of worms talking about the mortgage crisis, there seem to be as many different opinions on what caused all that as there are people, but my narrow point here is that a man who was given the power to bring Rand's philosophy of deregulation to life regretted doing so and in fact had his worldview changed.
[1]: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122476545437862295.html
Besides the fact that the article is annoyingly snarky, it just doesn't make good arguments. There are much better ways to criticize Uber than raving about some Ayn Rand connection. The writing meanders through several topics, but seems to be just grasping at threads. The author wants us to believe that Travis is some sort of Objectivist Fundamentalist, but fails to tie them together with anything more substantive than a Twitter profile picture and three year old forum post.
However, I do have to give him credit for creative character assassination. He includes lots of suggestive anecdotes (e.g. caricaturing Travis as "downright adolescent"), re-educates us with some condescending philosophical mischaracterizations (though he seems rather desperate in his attempts to portray Rand as the Worst Person In The World), and tops it off with some complete non-sequiturs (like trying to convince us that, hypothetically, if faced with Airbnb's problems, Travis would've ruined everything, all because of Ayn Rand).
I honestly can't tell if this article was motivated more by the author's hate of Travis or his hate of Ayn Rand. I imagine he already hated Travis, but upon noticing Travis' twitter icon, became irate and penned this screed.
My favorite part:
> Worse still, Rand inspired Paul Ryan, The Tea Party and the Koch Brothers.
You read right -- Uber is basically The Tea Party. So overall, I think the author does a better job of discrediting himself than anything else.
I'm personally convinced that the tech world getting politicized is absolutely the worst thing it can do for itself.
Naturally, if you make a peaceful economic activity illegal, the ensuing black market will have an over-representation of people willing to violate other (more serious) laws. Back home in the US, ignorance of this simple truth continues to dictate our policy on -- well, take a guess.
There are regulatory issues Airbnb does face, but you'd like to think an article taking startups like Airbnb to task would actually know what they are. This one doesn't.
First off, I'm not the biggest fan of the word disruption. I think it's a great description of what we as an industry do, however it seems that the word has created some sort of cargo cult, and now it appears to have become synonymous with "Killing it, bro!".
So to associate the entire startup industry with the word "Disruption" and claim that all who work within Silicon Valley adhere to a so called "pro-Disruption argument" is ridiculous. At best it's a badly worded generalization, at worst it's a blatant attempt to marginalize all of the efforts we put into making our businesses seem professional and legitimate, as he implies that if you subscribe to this argument you automatically ignore all laws in your area.
Continuing on we see that the author digresses into some rather, shall we say, pedestrian, class warfare. It's laughable to assume all startup CEO's are millionaires... much less that most can afford that $50 trip to Whole Foods (Whatever happened to the ramen fueled startup? Am I the only broke college student working on a side project in his off time?).
To finally address the claim that this community is some sort of collective hipster law breaking mob, I don't think you'll find stronger proponents of rigorous property and civil liberty law anywhere else on the internet besides reddit. Articles for stronger privacy laws are regularly ranked #1 here. Really, when you strip away all of the ad-hominems you're left with "Laws don’t exist merely to frustrate the business ambitions of coastal hipsters". Ahhhh, I see.
Not to pile on, but I'd like to add that it is disturbing to see a professional journalist use profanity so willingly in such acerbic personal attacks.
So here's the thing: we have solved many of these problems. Many of these problems boil down to trust relationships and increased information in the marketplace. The internet is pretty good at this.
Ever order something from a person on E-bay? Why? Heck, with big-ticket items on there, you could easily get ripped off. And back in the early days it happened a lot more. But E-bay implemented a peer-to-peer rating system. Now when you buy anything, you look at the seller's rating. They look at your rating. People with long histories of happy transactions are highly unlikely to ruin it all for just one. It happens, sure, but it's highly unlikely.
Nobody is arguing to throw grandmother out into the snow. I think anybody with a brain realizes what various laws were put into place to do. And anybody with a heart would agree with their goals. But it's a fair question to ask if the solutions from 1950 still make sense in the internet age. Many times -- not all, but many times -- they do not. We've got a better way worked out. We figured it out through trial and error and rapid iteration.
EDIT: And for those of you who missed the kicker, perhaps I didn't make this clear enough. We've found that peer-to-peer ratings/trust systems statistically outperform enforcement activities, because you are enlisting everybody in the community as an enforcer So you get your great social goals _and_ better adherence. It's a thing of beauty.
Obviously regulation isn't meant to stop outright crime like this, but I think it's meant to guarantee a minimum level of service so that the distribution of outcomes has a reasonable lower bound.
There are a couple of factors: cost per "incident" and volume of transactions. P2P trust systems work where there is a large volume, the cost-per-incident is relatively low, and, most importantly, the provider looks forward to continued transactions. To me cabs seem to easily fall under this rubric.
You know, it's possible to get a medical license and be so inept as to kill people for decades until you get caught. It's possible to get a hoteliers license and spy on your customers and cheat them out of services -- happens all the time. So we have to be clear that we are not comparing absolutes. There will always be problems with either solution. The question, to me, is "which system is more adaptive?" Some systems adapt quickly as conditions change. Most legal systems do not.
I'd still want legal recourse for bad actors in many situations. But things like taxicab drivers robbing you? We already have legal recourse, yes? So in reality with the taxi situation we're only talking about the cab fare, not a FUD list of possible really bad things (tm) that could happen in a taxi. Geesh. That'd be a huge list.
If there is one thing people like this need to learn its that no body gives it to you in life, you have to go and get it. People who started AirBnb are not descendants of aristocrats and kings, they have not inherited billions in wealth to start new businesses on zero risk. Those people bit by bit have built their own success. Do they have to give back something to the society? Yes- Taxes. But they are not responsible for all wrongs going in the society.
Besides what is Ayn Rand saying anyway? All she is saying is we must not make up a few pay up for everybody else. Are you as a millionaire responsible if somebody else isn't. How the hell are you responsible for it? Laws and Regulations are supposed to make to help everyone get rich, not to make every one poor on average.
When a disruptive business model makes it debut a lot of pain ensues. Automation replaces people, new model of supply chains eliminate middle men etc. Our job is to move to new productive level of work, instead of fighting new trends. Its futile to fight disruptive trends, because the inherent benefits they offer means there is nothing stopping them.
Expecting a stranger to worry about your financial well being is the most ridiculous way of living your life. He has no obligation towards you, and its stupid on your part if you expect something from him.
How am I poor on morality when someone whom I don't even know is poor. I didn't steal anything from him, and at the same time no one gave anything to me. Opportunities are made, there is nothing like a limited pool of them in a free market economy.
I agree there is going to be a little trouble initially for somebody who is poor(I know it as I was poor once myself). But as time goes, by and large you have you make you own way out of the problem.
I also agree that a person builds on other contribution especially social ones, but remember they are available equal to everyone. So unless you are disabled, or have serious health problems- You have no reason to not work on your problems.
Would it? We're headed towards a welfare state where de-facto every working stiff in the country is going to go on permanent vacation. Only this time it won't be bread and circuses, it'll be sustainable because of the power law and automation.
In Germany, we have a great social system, with (basically) free university, healthcare for everyone (until a couple years ago it was unheard of that a person didn't have health-care), a good public transport-system (I know, USA is bigger, hard to compare), pretty good unemployment benefits (which are being cut down by the liberal party more and more), a very good protection of workers and still we're one of the top economies in the world.
Every time I see Americans complain about their alleged "welfare-state" I'm just reminded of your crippling student-debt, people dying because they can't afford basic health-care, people getting fired because their boss threw a hissy-fit, people working two or three jobs so they can pay rent and I can't help but wonder how you people can even think of heading towards a health-care state.
But I have no first-hand accounts of that and know no-one living in these countries, but it looks like you're right (at least about Greece): http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57453670/austerity-bri... (they now can at least afford to pay their hospital workers)
Austerity measures are meant to crush an economy, not help.
(our german friend is better off, perhaps, from the looting of those nations)
And yet you think its wrong for individuals to feel that they should keep what they spent their lives building, rather than have it taken at gunpoint and given to someone who chose to waste their lives?
You'd think that this would be a particular pain point on NH: innovative startups are especially hurt by the lack of universal healthcare coverage. Many seasoned software veterans will not consider quitting a large corporation job to do a startup because they need good health coverage for themselves or their family. This applies to more than just software industries, of course.
Based on the productivity increases and stagnant wages of the last 30 years, working stiffs probably deserve a permanent vacation, but I assure you, they won't be getting it. As Frederick Douglass once said, "power concedes nothing without demand", and workers the world over have been demanding less and less of their employers over time.
Rand's bogeyman was government. A liberal's bogeyman is big business.
My bogeyman? Bigness. Not regulation, but simply big organizations that try to exert power & control over individuals. (How big is too big? Not sure, but here's a start: >1,000 individuals.) Some government regulation can actually combat this negative exertion of power (e.g. consumer protections, food labeling) whereas other regulations can make it worse (e.g. TSA, airport screenings).
I love small organizations. I think I love startups because they are small and most people start to dislike startups once they get big. The best big companies try to reorganize themselves to feel smaller.
I think Rand was a sycophant for corporate titans whom no serious startup entrepreneur should view as a role model, neither the titans nor the author herself.
As for the OP, I think the Randian connection is overstated. People who hate government tend to love Rand because it gives them a moral justification for hating the only institution society created for its self-benefit. The entrepreneur in question isn't some crusading Randian; he's just your everyday government hater who happens to have a library card.
Well-said. This is the point of view I've come to agree with, so I was eager for the counterpoint. But then came this:
It’s a compelling message but also one with dire potential consequences for public safety, particularly for those who can’t afford to take a $50 cab ride to Whole Foods.
What? We're talking about Uber Taxi, not the black car service. In theory Uber Taxi should lower the cost of a cab since there's presumably less overhead. What I really want to see is a bigger discussion about government regulation being forced out by tighter feedback loops, which is the main point of contention I see with things like Uber, Sidecar, etc.
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
but doesn't realize that the "One" it is referencing is government, not the "disruptive" citizens Mr. Carr is attacking. The point of the quote is that where the government fails to find criminals (criminal activity), it (the government) will create criminals by declaring "so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
If he doesn't understand that basic premise of the book, my guess would be that Mr. Carr hasn't in fact read the book at all but is simply pulling quotes off of the internet for which he really has no context.
It's politically motivated, and written by someone who has no integrity..... he doesn't care if he's lying. People getting outraged at his lies is, as far as he's concerned, good publicity.
The sad thing is, every month you see a Rand bashing article posted to hacker news and every month you see a lot of people posting in the comments attacking Rand for things she didn't say.
They believe what they're told to think about Rand and they internalize it so that it becomes fact.
So, they actually believe she thought charity was evil, for instance.
This is the kind of anti-intellectualism that is consuming american political discourse.
They want to prevent others from reading the book, so they lie about it.
An Uber-style system -- mobile-dispatched and mobile-paid -- is a stronger system of regulation than traditional city licensing, especially against threats like assaults.
Those assaults happen because the traditional system fails at enforcement, tracking, and providing an adequate supply. That causes riders to risk taking random cabs... or equivalently, leaves them helpless to distinguish the dangerous cabs.
In an Uber-like system, bad actors can't get assigned riders. Rider and driver can visually-authenticate each other via photos from their trusted devices -- much stronger than the 'mimeographed license taped to the window' system in legacy cabs. And more info is retained to investigate and resolve disputes after the fact.
So it is the malfunctioning legacy system that bears responsibility for those sorts of assaults/rapes. The legacy cab system is also responsible for other problems that have plagued it in the decades before Uber even existed, problems like rider/driver cash thefts, underservice at peak times and disfavored neighborhoods, and overcharging tourists. These will all be far less prevalent under an Uber-like system than the traditional system, and this improvement doesn't require a drain on city commissions and police.
I don't know how anyone could compare the service to a "gypsy"/unlicensed cab. Towncars and limos are not the same animal.
Just like the nurses strike here in the bay area. The media repeatedly informed us, some died while replacement nurses were working. I guess no one dies when union nurses are working.
Unless the driver of the licensed cab wants to go directly to jail, he politely refrains from raping passengers.
To be clear, I don't believe that argument works against Uber, quite clearly the drivers can be identified, so I don't know what the author's point is.