However, I can't remember a startup that received billions in funding and having such disregard for local laws around the globe. I just don't get it. They literally don't comply with any law in any country and give zero shits about the consequences.
I think Uber is a great company
and I love the product.
They're not saying they're a good company, they're saying they're a great company.
You realize the law at issue is a law Uber supported which legalized ridesharing services in California?
In these examples you have illegal organizations, for profit organizations, non profit organizations and individuals demanding the changes.
While I think there are good things about Uber, like breaking the Taxi co monopolies and lowering the barrier to entry for anyone to become a taxi driver, it would be a stretch, a big stretch to comparing how civil disobedience can help to bring change where civil injustice exists and allowing a company to co-opt this mechanism to enable it to enter markets more easily.
But when a $40 billion tech startup does it, it's cool.
Got it.
If money and power is allowed to buy a company greater ability to ignore the law than an individual human citizen... We all may as well call it a day, write the entire system off and start thinking about how the next one should work. Unless I see a counter example of say Google or Apple ignoring a stupid encryption must have back doors type law then we have zero examples of corporations ignoring the law for good... Vs hundreds of examples of them ignoring the law for evil, and a handful of examples where the good vs evil question is uncertain but should still be considered bad because they are breaking the law.
Relatively few laws are on the books just to f* people over. The vast majority of them were enacted because they addressed real issues.
These regulations pre-dated the internet. They existed in a time before information was easily shared and available. If I wanted to know how "Yellow Taxi Co" vetted its drivers in 1980, I would have needed to write letters and wait weeks for a response. That's not practical when I desperately need to get somewhere stat.
But now, I can open up my phone and find out how exactly Uber vets drivers in a minute. If I don't like that, I can use Lyft. Or SideCar. Or, call a cab. I see these regulations like forcing drills to come with a OCR "Don't it yourself" failsafe. I'm an adult. I can choose my own 'risk vs cost' profile. Let me decide, and cut the red tape.
Any of these could cause non-negligible personal risk, none of it your fault. For extra fun, imagine changing jurisdictions frequently and doing all that research over again.
Uber's economic model is maybe not my business, but my safety using them sure as hell is.
I don't want to second-guess whether drinking water is safe, food, etc. Nor do I want to have to Google whether it's safe merely to hail a cab-like service.
It's absurd to expect everyone to take 100% responsibility for all external factors beyond their control. At least some common, important factors need to be regulated simply to spare redundant burden on the populace.
In all the examples above, there's still room/need to stop aberrant behavior, eg, "why is this water so cloudy?! maybe I shouldn't drink it!"
A little altruism is required for societies to function. (Nor did I say complete altruism is required)
[1] http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-driver-heres-how-we-get-aro...
"You realize the law at issue is a law Uber supported which legalized ridesharing services in California?"
That's cool, any tips on how I can easily pull driver's arrest record and history of traffic violations?
I would also like some data on his last inspections to ensure that he's doing proper maintenance to his vehicle, and I'm not going to ride a beater who needs some break fluid and whose tires skid just a little in rainy weather.
Most adults are terrible at assessing risk. Why are you different? What do you do to protect yourself from the cognitive biases that everyone has?
How does that work if you are drunk, otherwise incapacitated or raped ?
Pretty sure you are going to begging at that point for more regulation. You can't just throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Some regulations generally make the situation safer for everyone.
However, you cannot convince me that people will somehow be safer with no regulations.
That means absolutely nothing. People were capable of making decisions before the internet, you know.
"They existed in a time before information was easily shared and available. If I wanted to know how "Yellow Taxi Co" vetted its drivers in 1980, I would have needed to write letters and wait weeks for a response. That's not practical when I desperately need to get somewhere stat."
And even with the internet, verifying all of that, and making sure that it's accurate, up to date, and not just astroturfing isn't practical either.
This idea that the government should protect everyone from everything is very dangerous.
Further I have never really felt safe in government approved taxi's so the idea that the government today is providing proper safety inspections and vetting of driver is laughably naive, Taxi regulations is a money scheme for government and has 0 to do with safety
The government shouldn't protect everyone from everything. They should, however, protect people when market failures do happen, like what happened in the taxi industry in the 20s and 30s. Uber's stonewalling here, when they were the ones who helped craft the law, shows how unconcerned that they aren't concerned with working out how to make taxis safer, just that they want to make money on an industry that needs rethinking, consequences be damned.
Nope, the reason it was created was because the taxi drivers where annoyed with the increase of competition during the Great Depression and started striking and destroying property until they got a monopoly over the business.
From the nyc.gov site: Widespread poverty prompted many New Yorkers to opt for less-expensive forms of transportation, decreasing the demand for taxis. This put many companies out of business and caused many cabdrivers to lose their jobs. The situation was made worse by the tactics of “wildcat” (unlicensed) taxis who used what some considered to be “underhanded tactics,” such as drastically lowering fares, to get more business. The situation in the taxi industry was dire; frustrated cabdrivers turned their anger into violent protest and the demands for industry regulation increased.
Another source: Striking taxi drivers was nothing new–the first strike took place in 1908, a year after the first taxi company was founded. But this strike had a hostile energy to it, as strikers went hunting for scabs to punish. As one driver put it, “the bastids that was scabbin’, we pulled the doors off their cabs.” Independent cab owners, who had nothing to gain by striking, had their windows smashed by blocks of ice and passengers thrown from their cabs. Police who tried restore order had their tires slashed and marbles thrown under their horses. By February 5, angry crowds of driving were brawling in the street with the police and torching independent cab cars.
http://untappedcities.com/2015/02/05/today-in-nyc-history-th...
So do Uber rides have terrible drivers, cars in bad shape, no consistent metering, or ride negotiation?
If not, then it seems like the regulation intended to accomplish the above is either obsolete or irrelevant to this case.
You that is the difference, technology it replacing government, and that is a good thing.
You do not need the government to know the uber driver is good or not, other uber users will tell you that
[1] http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-driver-heres-how-we-get-aro...
Until enough people agree with you and get the law changed, it's the law. You don't get to blatantly disregard it just because you disagree with it.
At the very least don't act surprised when disregarding the law results in punishment. It's kind of like, "Duh, what did you expect?"
As it stands, society has decided that we don't want people and companies doing whatever they want, and we want them to follow certain rules. We tried the laissez-faire system and in almost every case the end result was giant corporations screwing people over in some way.
Not really, considering none of them have worked very well so far.
"This idea that the government should protect everyone from everything is very dangerous."
This idea that companies should be able to do whatever they want because profit is even more dangerous.
"Further I have never really felt safe in government approved taxi's so the idea that the government today is providing proper safety inspections and vetting of driver is laughably naive, Taxi regulations is a money scheme for government and has 0 to do with safety"
Because your anecdote trumps reality?
Whilst I agree that here in Australia our taxi laws need to be improved I am not happy for Uber to just ignore important safety conditions that people have fought for e.g. security cameras.
Democracy is a terrible way to organize society.
In the meantime I will trust my local members and health/safety experts in the public sector over one US company trying to make billions as quickly as possible.
I do not trust uber, and I damn sure do not trust the government.
As far as a utopia, that is the dream of a statist. Statists believe if they elect just the right people, and pass just the right laws everyone will be safe, happy and life will finally be bliss for all....
Nonarchic (Anti-Statism) libertarians like myself do not believe in a utopia, we believe in a rational foundation of ethics we accept that bad things will happen to good people. We believe that over the long term allowing individuals to be free provides the best method for most people to be able to live happy and fulfilled lives as they desire.
they literally break every law in every country?
It's like this guy at work who always says "verbage". It just grinds certain peoples gears when people use words incorectly and shamelessly or ignorantly.
I could care less, irregardless... Oy vey!
If not the drivers' crutch of GPS maps, I also have to hear stories from my GF about Uber bros in wayferers trying to flirt with her. So yeah, can't say I "love" the product.
Minneapolis http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-joins-other-cities-re...
For me personally, Uber's expansion has convinced me the regulation around ridesharing does not need to go beyond wha t Uber already does. I can give zero shits that some public bureaucratic can't flex its authority.
If a country is a free, sovereign country, and not a dictatorship, then companies should respects its laws. Period.
And before you start naming other nations, no the US is not the "most" oppressive in the world, but just because they are less oppressive than say north Korea, that does not change the fact that US citizens do not enjoy the level of freedom they should in order for me to call it a free nation.
And if every nation is defined by you as totalitarian, then I think the problem is your definition.
The US is not perfect. It is less free than I would like. But there's a huge difference between the US and totalitarianism. If you've ever lived under a totalitarian regime, you'd know the difference, and you'd know which side of the line the US is on.
You believe a nation like that can be called "free"
At it core the concept of Statism is oppressive. No nation state can be truly free, democracy at its core is the majority oppressing the minority, and many times in reality the minority oppressing the majority.
You define that no nation state can be truly free, therefore the US is not truly free. Perfectly logical, but there is more going on in terms of freedom than is dreamt of in your philosophy. There is a huge difference between the US and totalitarianism. You define it to not exist. The problem is your definition.
(Note well: This does not mean that the US is perfect, is as free as it should be, or is the best that there currently is.)
There is not "more free" or "less free"
Freedom is a binary state
Edit
to be more clear what you are talking about is more accurately stated is "more oppressed" and "less oppressed".
Oppression can have varying degrees, freedom can not.
No, it's a continium. Should you be free to have other people as slaves, hurt your children, kill people, burn a forest etc?
If not, then you already drew some limits to freedom.
Yet, I'd venture that a person who "lacks the freedom" to own slaves is still perfectly free.
Never in the history of manking was the concept of freedom understood as this "total binary freedom" you mention. Even tribesmen and such had and respected limits while still considering themselves free folk.
At this point, I think we're in an infinite loop. AnimalMuppet out...
Nope. Not true.
Because there are negative consequences to not obeying - financial, jail, or both.
Because, in the case of a non-dictatorship, there is no good moral basis for not obeying.
Because, fuzzy-headed theorists aside, anarchy doesn't really work that well for a country-sized society.
Because respect for the law in society is really to your benefit. And because you're not going to like it if others ignore/disobey the laws that you like - laws against theft of your stuff, say.
Because, in a country with a functioning, responsive government, you've got lawful means to fight bad laws. Use them. (Those means may include civil disobedience as a last resort. But even then, you still have to respect the law to the extent that you recognize the law's right to put you in jail for disobeying a law that you believe to be wrong.)
Has it been tried and found lacking?
Tried in the sense of the government collapsed? Yes. See Somalia for the most recent example, but there are others. And when it has happened, yes, it has been found lacking.
Hey, I have an idea, how about voters.
Plenty of laws go unenforced because they no longer make sense to enforce. Enforcing the letter-of-the-law contrary to popular position is also one way to prohibit progress.
For example, you aren't allowed to remain at a bar in Alaska if you're drunk. I don't drink, but I think enforcing that kind of defeats the purpose of a bar? [0]
[0] http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/folioproxy.asp?url=http:/...
In any case, the State still has the decision - that's exactly what judges like this one are for. One court order and Uber can be shut down the next day.
I think it would have been important for UBER to ask this, and then lobby to change the law.
I absolutely do not think that is relevant when talking about a company that has decided to disregard the law, simply because it's one you happen to not like.
Step 1: Find a regulated industry (taxi, hotel, liquor, etc.)
Step 2: Create an app and label yourself as being part of the "sharing economy" that is disrupting the industry
Step 3: Completely ignore all regulation
Step 4: Profit — largely because you don't have to pay for licensing, insurance, etc. while everyone else in the industry you are trying to disrupt does
I see companies like Uber disrupting the industry by removing inefficiency. Licensing, medallions, appeasing public bureaucrats, etc are inefficiencies. That's not to say that regulation is inherently bad, but we need to let new industries grow and see its challenges first -- instead of applying outdated concepts (like medallions, licensing) to new technology.
For example: USPS, by law, has a monopoly on mail delivery. Just imagine if USPS banned all e-mail providers and forced you to use your @usps.com inbox. Is this a net benefit? Is the taxi industry banning all ridesharing apps and forcing you to use taxis a net benefit?
All of these things have costs. Uber didn't remove the inefficiencies from the system, they just ignored the laws that cause them. I too can remove "inefficiencies" from my bottom line by not paying my taxes, right?
I love Uber. I love that's it's on demand. I love that it's cheaper. But if you recall the time before UberX—when their was only black car service and all drivers had to have Passenger Carrier Permits, commercial insurance, and comply with CPUC rules and regulations—it WASN'T cheaper. The minimum was $15 a ride. SF to Sausalito was $80.
Uber started with a great premium service that was compliant with the law and fixed a real problem. Uber expanded by saying, "We need to grow. Fast. The law no longer applies to us."
Uber enforces the paperwork requirements of each (product type, geofence) permutation. Why would it require something like a Passenger Carrier Permit, if local law does not require it?
If you RTFA, you'll notice that the issue is failure to hand over trip data and GPS logs. Regualators allegedly want them to make sure disabled people and people with service animals are not discriminated against, but I'd be stunned if that's all the data was used for once it fell into government hands.
Uber maintains commercial automobile insurance that covers U.S. partner drivers that operate under the “Ridesharing” or “Transportation Network Company” (“TNC”) model through Uber’s TNC subsidiaries, Rasier LLC and its affiliates.(1)
Most of us sees a purpose in paying tax. But, say example, you made an app that files your taxes just like an agent. You could call it TurboTax and sell it, and save $100s of dollars for tax filers. You provide insurance so that if your app does something wrong, you will reimburse people who get penalised.
The point is, the law has always been: if you drive commercially, you need commercial insurance. This is what keeps most people from driving commercially.
Bernie Madoff's investors would disagree.
Licensing primarily works by raising the barrier to entry, discouraging 'bad actors' from signing up because society-wise, 'bad actors' are more distributed among poorer demographics and are unable to afford licensing.
For one, they make no mention of requiring commercial vehicle insurance (https://www.uber.com/driver-jobs) and say that drivers only need personal vehicle insurance.
They have contingent liability injury insurance with a total available of $100K.
They talk of having commercial insurance during trips, but it is only third party liability and UI/UM. If you're a passenger in an Uber accident and insurers decline to cover when they become aware the vehicle was driven commercially, you're out of luck.
Of course, that requires you to commit a crime first, but it's not like the licenses prevent you from doing so.
And even then, The overwhelming majority of cabbies who killed and maimed passengers and pedestrians in the past five years are back behind the wheel. Of 16 fatal or serious crashes since 2009 examined by The Post, only two of the drivers had their licenses revoked, according to a review based on a Freedom of Information Act request.
http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/cabbies-who-kill-or-maim-in-nyc...
Licensing isn't just 'we are not a scam' any more than a "site seal" on a website means anything.
Plenty of companies with valuations in the 8 and 9 digit range have a history of doing dubious things up to and including things that have been known to cost lives.
Licensing doesn't prevent that. But does help with some of the things needed to minimize. Uber just "opted" out of "inefficient regulation".
How much was Bernie Madoff's fund worth when he was arrested?
So Uber has provided significant positive sum gains on top of whatever negative externalities they've thrown off, which makes it much harder to claim that this is a case of merely avoiding regulations others have to follow. Taxi companies could have done all of positive-sum things Uber did [2], but didn't.
So I don't think that narrative fits the situation, or at least, can't account for than 1/3 of Uber's appeal.
[1] specifically, some insurable events that are generally accepted to be the company's responsibility to cover and not the driver's.
[2] easy-to-use app, removing the tipping dance, clean cars, mutual rating, quick action on complaints, reliable follow-up when a ride is requested, pooling rides, cashless transactions, etc
Step 4: Find a sucker to dump the whole company on before the law catches up and walk off into the sunset.