22 ms·

I don't like the US government much, but I like it a lot better than the average multinational. When it comes down to it, we don't have more than our choice of

I don't like the US government much, but I like it a lot better than the average multinational. When it comes down to it, we don't have more than our choice of devils. If I don't like Uber, I can... stop using Uber. What can I do if I don't like the service a state provides - can I opt out and stop paying? No, my only option is to flee - which the state will often try and prevent you doing anyway. The state is a huge corporation, that will use force to change you for its services, whether they are good or not, or whether you use them or not. Your only option to avoid this involuntary charge s to flee - and the state reserves the right to employ violence to stop you doing even that. It seems pretty clear to me which is more immoral.

eridius 10y ago
Did you just make the argument that the government enforcing the laws is immoral?
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  It looks that way - and for what it's worth, it's not exactly an unprecedented position.
- ahoy 10y ago
  Welcome to libertarianism.
  - Florin_Andrei 10y ago
    This is not normal. But on Ayn Rand, it is.
    - ska 10y ago
      Like other drugs many people experiment with in high school, a little won't hurt you but prolonged exposure to Rand can lead to cognitive deficits and antisocial behavior.
      - lacampbell 10y ago
        I experimented with socialism in High School. I was actually reading authors much more banal than Ayn Rand could ever hope to be - like Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky. Really glad I grew out of that stage. Gave up half way through Atlas shrugged I'm afraid. I did enjoy how accurately it depicted socialists and social democrats though - as I was reading it I could help but laugh as I've come across people talking like that so often.
        Florin_Andrei 10y ago
        The extremes are always wrong.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  Depends on what the laws are. A law gains no special moral quality via the legislative process. Immoral laws exist.
  - eridius 10y ago
    OP was arguing that because they don't like the law it's immoral to enforce. Whether or not OP likes the law really has nothing to do with whether the law is immoral.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      Not sure I read it that way, but okay. But that reading requires you to ask "why", and sometimes it feels very much like the government lost the consent of the governed a looooong time ago..
      - sgift 10y ago
        If the government had lost the consent of the governed it wouldn't have been elected / it won't be elected again. That's basically what all this is about. Sure, democracy, elections, all this things may not be the best system, but it is very effective at damage control. You don't govern well? You're out after four or five years. All other system known have far worse damage control.
        Karunamon 10y ago
        Alternative view: The government has lost the consent of the governed, but people are so engrossed in other stuff that they don't do anything about it due to how painful the upheaval would be. In other words, it's tolerated rather than accepted. Roman poets would call this "bread and circuses".
        sgift 10y ago
        Every revolution in history is proof that this doesn't really work. If the government really looses the approval of the governed and not just of a small minority revolution will follow.
- snappyTertle 10y ago
  If the law is immoral, wouldn't forcing people to follow something immoral be immoral?
- eddieplan9 10y ago
  Yes. We were happy when the border control releases folks detained at airport after the immigration ban.
- darawk 10y ago
  The government enforcing laws is immoral at times. It is the law in Saudi Arabia to stone homosexuals to death.
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    For many years gay sex was illegal in many states. Likewise many states had laws against inter-racial marriages. Enforcing those "laws" was totally immoral.
  - camus2 10y ago
    Saudi Arabia is a monarchy and theocratic dictatorship. The law of this country is not made by the people for the people unlike any decent democracy. Picking up the worst example on the planet to try to make your argument look good discredits you.
    - darawk 10y ago
      Ok, so how about slavery. Or eugenics laws in the 1930s. Or Jim Crow. Or anti-sodomy laws in the US. Or women not being allowed to vote. Or like, any, of the literally thousands of horribly immoral laws that have been on the books in literally every country on the planet.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  Did you just make the argument that the government enforcing the laws is immoral? When most of the laws are immoral, then I would say that it is. And an immoral law is - IMO - any time the State is doing anything other than acting, as Bastiat[1] put it, "as the collective extension to our individual right to self defense". [1]: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G004 http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G004
Wizek 10y ago
Flee? Sure, if you are already wanted for arrest. Otherwise you can also move/emigrate. Which sounds a lot less dramatic than 'flee'.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  For what it's worth, the US government requires income tax to be paid on foreign earnings, even while living and working overseas. To avoid that, you'd have to also renounce citizenships, which is expensive and at the government's discretion.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    Indeed. It is very difficult to renounce citizenship entirely. Doubly so because most emigration targets don't grant full citizenship. The US is really awful about this. Americans are not allowed to opt out of their citizenship without extreme measures.
    - mpweiher 10y ago
      "Niemand hat vor eine Mauer zu bauen" :-) Maybe that wall isn't for keeping Mexicans out?
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    EDIT: I was wrong about this, see comments below. False. If you renounce it it's expensive and difficult to get it back, and but renouncing itself is free and unilateral. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerati...
    - bmelton 10y ago
      How does that square with this article? https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/10/23/u-s-has-worlds-highest-fee-to-renounce-citizenship/#58d9fad647de https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/10/23/u-s-has-w... To sum up, there was a $450 renunciation fee as well as a $450 fee for relinquishment, but both were jacked up from $450 to $2,350. This does not include exit taxes and the like, but while $4700 might seem trivial to the well-heeled, it's a far cry from free (and unilateral).
frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
>What can I do if I don't like the service a state provides You can vote. >The state is a huge corporation No.
- snappyTertle 10y ago
  Voting is an illusion of choice. You have the choice to use Uber or not, You don't have a choice when it comes to following the law. How is state not a huge corporation?
  - quirkot 10y ago
    A corporation is an entity designed to take on risk for the benefit of the few. The state is an entity designed to mitigate risk for the benefit of all, which ends up benefiting the few due to implementation problems
    - snappyTertle 10y ago
      The state is an entity designed to benefit all at the cost of the few, but thanks to the corruption of uneven power, the state ends up benefitting those in power at the cost of those not in power.
      - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
        But here your problem is not with government but bad government.
        mindcrime 10y ago
        I would argue that when you give a subset of a population an institutionalized monopoly on the user of force, you're always going to get bad government eventually. That's why the State should never have the power to do anything that an individual could not justly do. http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
nemacol 10y ago
You can vote, run for office, petition, volunteer, protest,etc to the local, state, and federal government to have policies that reflect your values. The only thing you can do with Uber is use it or not. Maybe you could write Uber a letter. You have a say in government - that is its stated goal and purpose. Of the people for the people.
- voxic11 10y ago
  All those options also apply to Uber, you can buy it or join it and convince the shareholders to make your CEO.
  - nemacol 10y ago
    I think I understand your point. Trying to compare a persons influence in government, a system designed to encourage citizen participation, to that of a corporation, a system designed to make as much money as possible and answer to share holders, is not great. "In order to form a more perfect union" VS "the pursuit of shareholder wealth." Even if the system is not working exactly the way we want - it never will - we are still endowed with the rights to participate. The same cannot be said for corporations.
- darawk 10y ago
  The 'say' you have in government is much smaller than the 'say' you have in using Uber. I can choose not to use Uber any time I please. I can not choose not to be pulled over for speeding, or opt out of murder laws temporarily. The fact that you don't have a say in Uber's corporate decisions is irrelevant, because you can simply stop using it. You don't need a say. The fact that you can't opt out of government is why you're given a say, and what makes it infinitely more dangerous.
  - mavrc 10y ago
    > The 'say' you have in government is much smaller than the 'say' you have in using Uber. I can choose not to use Uber any time I please. True. I have effectively no choice in ISP, and no choice in power company. At what point do I get to vote on seats on my ISP's board, or my power company's?
briandear 10y ago
Actually even if you "flee," the US has FATCA and taxation on world wide income. If you want to renounce, there's a $2300 fee, plus you have to show 5 years of tax compliance. If you have enough money, there's even an exit tax.
geofft 10y ago
> If I don't like Uber, I can... stop using Uber. This is a super naive view of how markets work (and I'm very surprised to see this out of someone who calls the state a "corporation"). I don't really mind Uber as a service; they get me where I need to go. I hate Uber as a market participant. They change the economics of taxis, of existing black car services, of public transit, etc., i.e., of every single thing I'm using because I'm not using Uber. I haven't used Uber in years, but I want it out of the markets that I try to buy transit service in, because it affects those markets.
- snappyTertle 10y ago
  You want it out, but it's pretty clear other people don't. Why are you able to force your personal views on other? You are free to choose not to use Uber, others are free to choose for themselves.
  - geofft 10y ago
    Because that's the primary way that governments aren't just corporations: if the rulers (the majority, in a democracy) believe that Uber needs to go out, or at least needs to stop participating in the market in certain ways, the government can enforce that via its monopoly on violence. This has historically worked pretty well for human society; for instance, if someone gets the clever idea to participate in a market by impersonating an existing, trusted market participant, or offering counterfeit goods, or using slave labor to plant cotton, or whatever other bad idea that is short-term profitable, the government can step in and say that this isn't long-term good for society. Whether Portland is correct to stop Uber is a legitimate matter of debate, but that Portland legitimately has the ability to choose to stop Uber is, I'd hope, uncontroversial.
    - snappyTertle 10y ago
      Why should a majority be able to decide who and who doesn't get to participate in the market?
      - 10y ago
anigbrowl 10y ago
Sorry, services like Uber have externalities and do not only impact their consumers. Your only option to avoid this involuntary charge s to flee Bollocks. People organize for and achieve their political goals by modifying government on a regular basis. Governmental institutions suffer from numerous flaws, but your argument is that government is fundamentally totalitarian which is nonsense.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- wav-part 10y ago
  No. Notice the word "voluntary". From libertarian point of view, Socialism is ok if you voluntary opt-in. Voluntary/Consent is central point in libertarianism.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    In real world (as opposed to theoretical libertarian utopia), voluntary market interactions aren't that common. People are trivially manipulated. Consider that the entire marketing industry is literally about taking away agency from one side of the business relationship.
    - wav-part 10y ago
      Manipulation != Coercion. Yes both are problems but libertarianism claims to solve only one of those. For the other one, if you are unable, follow/place-your-trust-on someone else. There is no need to solve one problem by creating bigger problem.
      - AstralStorm 10y ago
        Consent is not the same as informed consent. Libertarian utopia is ripe for getting people tricked and robbed while technically fulfilling contracts to the letter. Consider what would happen in, say, medicine without the informed part. And saying you can switch... Typically not due to availability, lack of information and monopolies. The other question is who enforces these contracts and who prevents these people from abusing their means.
rhino369 10y ago
>If I don't like Uber, I can... stop using Uber. Even ignoring the fact that Uber might become a monopoly, this ignores extrenalities caused by corporations. You don't have to purchase chemicals from a chemical factory to be impacted by them dumping toxic chemicals into the water supply because it is cheaper.
- scarhill 10y ago
  Can you describe the steps that would lead to Uber becoming a monopoly? I can't imagine that happening without government help, can you? And if it requires that kind of help, is the problem with Uber or government?
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    If they continue to evade law enforcement and ignore the laws that taxi companies follow they will have an unfair advantage over taxi companies. Taxi companies have and will continue to go out of business. If you follow this reasoning to its logical extreme you have an Uber monopoly.
    - scarhill 10y ago
      That might be bad for taxi companies, but what happens to Lyft in that scenario? Won't other ride sharing companies start up? Uber only becomes a monopoly if they can keep all competition out, not just taxi companies. Taxi companies succeeded in doing that for decades by colluding with politicians to limit competition. Uber would have to adopt a similar strategy to get anything close to a monopoly.
      - usrusr 10y ago
        If Uber ever reaches a saturation so high that much of congestion is made up of ubers, they will literally be blocking access to potential customers. An uber will always be near, but an "unter" won't make it to pickup in time, because of all the congesting ubers. Driving as a service always operates on public infrastructure and medallion systems are there to protect those commons from excessive use. If uber does not like the rules of road use, they are free to purchase their own right of ways. It's America, nobody will stop them if they show up with enough cash. Also, no more speeding tickets for uber drivers!
sgift 10y ago
> If I don't like Uber, I can... stop using Uber. What can I do if I don't like the service a state provides - can I opt out and stop paying? No, my only option is to flee - which the state will often try and prevent you doing anyway. Flee? So states are a prison? Last time I checked it was pretty easy to leave a state which equals 'stop using Uber'. Fleeing implies you aren't allowed to go, that's wrong. The only problem is no other state (or country or whatever) is forced to accept you as a new customer. And who would want a customer that doesn't want to pay for the products ..
fictioncircle 10y ago
> If I don't like Uber, I can... stop using Uber. What can I do if I don't like the service a state provides - can I opt out and stop paying? No, my only option is to flee - which the state will often try and prevent you doing anyway. You can't evade a service like Uber either which does have an impact on the commons just like a Government does. You can avoid giving Uber your money but that isn't quite the same thing.
jfoutz 10y ago
You can't really stop unlicensed autonomous vehicles from running red lights in your home town though. Just because you don't pay them, doesn't mean they don't affect you. I'm not going to change your mind on statism, and don't really want to, but a key component of statism is the massive power advantage they have over you. A multinational does not have a state level power advantage, but they're still much more powerful than you. If they choose to act in an immoral way, there's not much you can do about it.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> If I don't like Uber, I can... stop using Uber. You can, but if that decision is not sufficiently common in your area, and you don't have sufficient resources to relocate before the problem becomes acute, you may find your practical choices constrained in such a way that you are left with no realistic choice for necessary functions but to use Uber. > What can I do if I don't like the service a state provides - can I opt out and stop paying? You can (and history has lots of examples of people doing just that), but if that decision is not sufficiently popular in your area... well, the same as for Uber, above. The particular manner in which the lack of options, may, depending on the particular state and the particular service involved, be more dramatic than the case with most corporate goods or services. OTOH, depending on the particular state and service, you may have a lot more direct input into the decision making behind providing the service and how the state reacts to opting out, in the first place.
- danielweber 10y ago
  Uber isn't a monopoly. For all the scummy things that Uber has done, they have avoided the most scummy thing they could do to become a monopoly: driver lock-in, making their drivers commit to only drive for them and not for Lyft. Susan Fowler's post has me pretty fed up with Uber, but for some reason greyballing doesn't bother me at all.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Uber isn't a monopoly. Like every startup (and most companies), it aims to be; a moat is pricing power is an absence of substitute is monopoly.
    - danielweber 10y ago
      Sure, they want to be a monopoly. But they're not. Seriously, how do they get lock-in of riders or drivers? Installing a second app is a really really low bar. You can't do predatory pricing forever.
      - 10y ago
freeflight 10y ago
>If I don't like Uber, I can... stop using Uber Keep in mind, this is only possible as long as there's an actual alternative to Uber. Once they, or any other multinational for that matter, manage to establish a monopoly you will be flat out of other options. Even worse: Once they are well aware of their monopoly they will abuse it in every imaginable way. Don't be evil.. at least until you are big enough. >It seems pretty clear to me which is more immoral. No, it's not. If you dislike "government" so much you are always free to move to a place where there's less or even none of it. Case in point: Somalia has barely any government to speak of, pretty much no regulations and very high rates of firearms ownership, it's basically "libertarian utopia". Strangely enough, barely any libertarians would want to live there?
- lacampbell 10y ago
  No, it's not. If you dislike "government" so much you are always free to move to a place where there's less or even none of it. Case in point: Somalia has barely any government to speak of, pretty much no regulations and very high rates of firearms ownership, it's basically "libertarian utopia". Strangely enough, barely any libertarians would want to live there? Oh, a Somalia expert. I was wondering when one of these people would pop up in this discussion. I'm sure I can learn a lot from you actually - I don't know much about the place at all. Can I ask you why you think Somalia doesn't have any government to speak of? Somalia has had a central government since 2007 - but I'm sure you already knew that. I'm also curious about your opinion of the Barre Administration and the (presumably) high standard of living the government provided during that time.
  - freeflight 10y ago
    I never claimed to be an "expert" on Somalia, I merely pointed out that it's among those countries that have what supposedly makes a good "libertarian utopia": Barely any regulations, due to the government being ineffective at actually enforcing them, and high rates of firearms ownership. >Somalia has had a central government since 2007 - but I'm sure you already knew that. They have some government going that is barely able to project itself across the country. >I'm also curious about your opinion of the Barre Administration and the (presumably) high standard of living the government provided during that time. That's a non-sequitur, just because some governments failed/had been ineffective at what they're supposed to do, does not mean that all of them are failing/are ineffective at what they are trying to do.
st3v3r 10y ago
I have far, far, far, far, far more avenues to influence the US government than I have to influence a large company which is acting in a harmful manner. If a company is spewing pollution into the air, my not using them isn't going to do jack shit to stop them from polluting the air.

eridius 10y ago

Did you just make the argument that the government enforcing the laws is immoral?

LyndsySimon 10y ago
It looks that way - and for what it's worth, it's not exactly an unprecedented position.
ahoy 10y ago
Welcome to libertarianism.
- Florin_Andrei 10y ago
  This is not normal. But on Ayn Rand, it is.
  - ska 10y ago
    Like other drugs many people experiment with in high school, a little won't hurt you but prolonged exposure to Rand can lead to cognitive deficits and antisocial behavior.
    - lacampbell 10y ago
      I experimented with socialism in High School. I was actually reading authors much more banal than Ayn Rand could ever hope to be - like Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky. Really glad I grew out of that stage. Gave up half way through Atlas shrugged I'm afraid. I did enjoy how accurately it depicted socialists and social democrats though - as I was reading it I could help but laugh as I've come across people talking like that so often.
      - Florin_Andrei 10y ago
        The extremes are always wrong.
Karunamon 10y ago
Depends on what the laws are. A law gains no special moral quality via the legislative process. Immoral laws exist.
- eridius 10y ago
  OP was arguing that because they don't like the law it's immoral to enforce. Whether or not OP likes the law really has nothing to do with whether the law is immoral.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    Not sure I read it that way, but okay. But that reading requires you to ask "why", and sometimes it feels very much like the government lost the consent of the governed a looooong time ago..
    - sgift 10y ago
      If the government had lost the consent of the governed it wouldn't have been elected / it won't be elected again. That's basically what all this is about. Sure, democracy, elections, all this things may not be the best system, but it is very effective at damage control. You don't govern well? You're out after four or five years. All other system known have far worse damage control.
      - Karunamon 10y ago
        Alternative view: The government has lost the consent of the governed, but people are so engrossed in other stuff that they don't do anything about it due to how painful the upheaval would be. In other words, it's tolerated rather than accepted. Roman poets would call this "bread and circuses".
        sgift 10y ago
        Every revolution in history is proof that this doesn't really work. If the government really looses the approval of the governed and not just of a small minority revolution will follow.
snappyTertle 10y ago
If the law is immoral, wouldn't forcing people to follow something immoral be immoral?
eddieplan9 10y ago
Yes. We were happy when the border control releases folks detained at airport after the immigration ban.
darawk 10y ago
The government enforcing laws is immoral at times. It is the law in Saudi Arabia to stone homosexuals to death.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  For many years gay sex was illegal in many states. Likewise many states had laws against inter-racial marriages. Enforcing those "laws" was totally immoral.
- camus2 10y ago
  Saudi Arabia is a monarchy and theocratic dictatorship. The law of this country is not made by the people for the people unlike any decent democracy. Picking up the worst example on the planet to try to make your argument look good discredits you.
  - darawk 10y ago
    Ok, so how about slavery. Or eugenics laws in the 1930s. Or Jim Crow. Or anti-sodomy laws in the US. Or women not being allowed to vote. Or like, any, of the literally thousands of horribly immoral laws that have been on the books in literally every country on the planet.
mindcrime 10y ago
Did you just make the argument that the government enforcing the laws is immoral? When most of the laws are immoral, then I would say that it is. And an immoral law is - IMO - any time the State is doing anything other than acting, as Bastiat[1] put it, "as the collective extension to our individual right to self defense". [1]: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G004 http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G004

Wizek 10y ago

Flee? Sure, if you are already wanted for arrest. Otherwise you can also move/emigrate. Which sounds a lot less dramatic than 'flee'.

LyndsySimon 10y ago
For what it's worth, the US government requires income tax to be paid on foreign earnings, even while living and working overseas. To avoid that, you'd have to also renounce citizenships, which is expensive and at the government's discretion.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  Indeed. It is very difficult to renounce citizenship entirely. Doubly so because most emigration targets don't grant full citizenship. The US is really awful about this. Americans are not allowed to opt out of their citizenship without extreme measures.
  - mpweiher 10y ago
    "Niemand hat vor eine Mauer zu bauen" :-) Maybe that wall isn't for keeping Mexicans out?
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  EDIT: I was wrong about this, see comments below. False. If you renounce it it's expensive and difficult to get it back, and but renouncing itself is free and unilateral. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerati...
  - bmelton 10y ago
    How does that square with this article? https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/10/23/u-s-has-worlds-highest-fee-to-renounce-citizenship/#58d9fad647de https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/10/23/u-s-has-w... To sum up, there was a $450 renunciation fee as well as a $450 fee for relinquishment, but both were jacked up from $450 to $2,350. This does not include exit taxes and the like, but while $4700 might seem trivial to the well-heeled, it's a far cry from free (and unilateral).

frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago

>What can I do if I don't like the service a state provides You can vote. >The state is a huge corporation No.

snappyTertle 10y ago
Voting is an illusion of choice. You have the choice to use Uber or not, You don't have a choice when it comes to following the law. How is state not a huge corporation?
- quirkot 10y ago
  A corporation is an entity designed to take on risk for the benefit of the few. The state is an entity designed to mitigate risk for the benefit of all, which ends up benefiting the few due to implementation problems
  - snappyTertle 10y ago
    The state is an entity designed to benefit all at the cost of the few, but thanks to the corruption of uneven power, the state ends up benefitting those in power at the cost of those not in power.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
      But here your problem is not with government but bad government.
      - mindcrime 10y ago
        I would argue that when you give a subset of a population an institutionalized monopoly on the user of force, you're always going to get bad government eventually. That's why the State should never have the power to do anything that an individual could not justly do. http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

nemacol 10y ago

You can vote, run for office, petition, volunteer, protest,etc to the local, state, and federal government to have policies that reflect your values. The only thing you can do with Uber is use it or not. Maybe you could write Uber a letter. You have a say in government - that is its stated goal and purpose. Of the people for the people.

voxic11 10y ago
All those options also apply to Uber, you can buy it or join it and convince the shareholders to make your CEO.
- nemacol 10y ago
  I think I understand your point. Trying to compare a persons influence in government, a system designed to encourage citizen participation, to that of a corporation, a system designed to make as much money as possible and answer to share holders, is not great. "In order to form a more perfect union" VS "the pursuit of shareholder wealth." Even if the system is not working exactly the way we want - it never will - we are still endowed with the rights to participate. The same cannot be said for corporations.
darawk 10y ago
The 'say' you have in government is much smaller than the 'say' you have in using Uber. I can choose not to use Uber any time I please. I can not choose not to be pulled over for speeding, or opt out of murder laws temporarily. The fact that you don't have a say in Uber's corporate decisions is irrelevant, because you can simply stop using it. You don't need a say. The fact that you can't opt out of government is why you're given a say, and what makes it infinitely more dangerous.
- mavrc 10y ago
  > The 'say' you have in government is much smaller than the 'say' you have in using Uber. I can choose not to use Uber any time I please. True. I have effectively no choice in ISP, and no choice in power company. At what point do I get to vote on seats on my ISP's board, or my power company's?

briandear 10y ago

Actually even if you "flee," the US has FATCA and taxation on world wide income. If you want to renounce, there's a $2300 fee, plus you have to show 5 years of tax compliance. If you have enough money, there's even an exit tax.

geofft 10y ago

> If I don't like Uber, I can... stop using Uber. This is a super naive view of how markets work (and I'm very surprised to see this out of someone who calls the state a "corporation"). I don't really mind Uber as a service; they get me where I need to go. I hate Uber as a market participant. They change the economics of taxis, of existing black car services, of public transit, etc., i.e., of every single thing I'm using because I'm not using Uber. I haven't used Uber in years, but I want it out of the markets that I try to buy transit service in, because it affects those markets.

snappyTertle 10y ago
You want it out, but it's pretty clear other people don't. Why are you able to force your personal views on other? You are free to choose not to use Uber, others are free to choose for themselves.
- geofft 10y ago
  Because that's the primary way that governments aren't just corporations: if the rulers (the majority, in a democracy) believe that Uber needs to go out, or at least needs to stop participating in the market in certain ways, the government can enforce that via its monopoly on violence. This has historically worked pretty well for human society; for instance, if someone gets the clever idea to participate in a market by impersonating an existing, trusted market participant, or offering counterfeit goods, or using slave labor to plant cotton, or whatever other bad idea that is short-term profitable, the government can step in and say that this isn't long-term good for society. Whether Portland is correct to stop Uber is a legitimate matter of debate, but that Portland legitimately has the ability to choose to stop Uber is, I'd hope, uncontroversial.
  - snappyTertle 10y ago
    Why should a majority be able to decide who and who doesn't get to participate in the market?
    - 10y ago

anigbrowl 10y ago

Sorry, services like Uber have externalities and do not only impact their consumers. Your only option to avoid this involuntary charge s to flee Bollocks. People organize for and achieve their political goals by modifying government on a regular basis. Governmental institutions suffer from numerous flaws, but your argument is that government is fundamentally totalitarian which is nonsense.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
wav-part 10y ago
No. Notice the word "voluntary". From libertarian point of view, Socialism is ok if you voluntary opt-in. Voluntary/Consent is central point in libertarianism.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  In real world (as opposed to theoretical libertarian utopia), voluntary market interactions aren't that common. People are trivially manipulated. Consider that the entire marketing industry is literally about taking away agency from one side of the business relationship.
  - wav-part 10y ago
    Manipulation != Coercion. Yes both are problems but libertarianism claims to solve only one of those. For the other one, if you are unable, follow/place-your-trust-on someone else. There is no need to solve one problem by creating bigger problem.
    - AstralStorm 10y ago
      Consent is not the same as informed consent. Libertarian utopia is ripe for getting people tricked and robbed while technically fulfilling contracts to the letter. Consider what would happen in, say, medicine without the informed part. And saying you can switch... Typically not due to availability, lack of information and monopolies. The other question is who enforces these contracts and who prevents these people from abusing their means.

rhino369 10y ago

>If I don't like Uber, I can... stop using Uber. Even ignoring the fact that Uber might become a monopoly, this ignores extrenalities caused by corporations. You don't have to purchase chemicals from a chemical factory to be impacted by them dumping toxic chemicals into the water supply because it is cheaper.

scarhill 10y ago
Can you describe the steps that would lead to Uber becoming a monopoly? I can't imagine that happening without government help, can you? And if it requires that kind of help, is the problem with Uber or government?
- sqeaky 10y ago
  If they continue to evade law enforcement and ignore the laws that taxi companies follow they will have an unfair advantage over taxi companies. Taxi companies have and will continue to go out of business. If you follow this reasoning to its logical extreme you have an Uber monopoly.
  - scarhill 10y ago
    That might be bad for taxi companies, but what happens to Lyft in that scenario? Won't other ride sharing companies start up? Uber only becomes a monopoly if they can keep all competition out, not just taxi companies. Taxi companies succeeded in doing that for decades by colluding with politicians to limit competition. Uber would have to adopt a similar strategy to get anything close to a monopoly.
    - usrusr 10y ago
      If Uber ever reaches a saturation so high that much of congestion is made up of ubers, they will literally be blocking access to potential customers. An uber will always be near, but an "unter" won't make it to pickup in time, because of all the congesting ubers. Driving as a service always operates on public infrastructure and medallion systems are there to protect those commons from excessive use. If uber does not like the rules of road use, they are free to purchase their own right of ways. It's America, nobody will stop them if they show up with enough cash. Also, no more speeding tickets for uber drivers!

sgift 10y ago

> If I don't like Uber, I can... stop using Uber. What can I do if I don't like the service a state provides - can I opt out and stop paying? No, my only option is to flee - which the state will often try and prevent you doing anyway. Flee? So states are a prison? Last time I checked it was pretty easy to leave a state which equals 'stop using Uber'. Fleeing implies you aren't allowed to go, that's wrong. The only problem is no other state (or country or whatever) is forced to accept you as a new customer. And who would want a customer that doesn't want to pay for the products ..

fictioncircle 10y ago

> If I don't like Uber, I can... stop using Uber. What can I do if I don't like the service a state provides - can I opt out and stop paying? No, my only option is to flee - which the state will often try and prevent you doing anyway. You can't evade a service like Uber either which does have an impact on the commons just like a Government does. You can avoid giving Uber your money but that isn't quite the same thing.

jfoutz 10y ago

You can't really stop unlicensed autonomous vehicles from running red lights in your home town though. Just because you don't pay them, doesn't mean they don't affect you. I'm not going to change your mind on statism, and don't really want to, but a key component of statism is the massive power advantage they have over you. A multinational does not have a state level power advantage, but they're still much more powerful than you. If they choose to act in an immoral way, there's not much you can do about it.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> If I don't like Uber, I can... stop using Uber. You can, but if that decision is not sufficiently common in your area, and you don't have sufficient resources to relocate before the problem becomes acute, you may find your practical choices constrained in such a way that you are left with no realistic choice for necessary functions but to use Uber. > What can I do if I don't like the service a state provides - can I opt out and stop paying? You can (and history has lots of examples of people doing just that), but if that decision is not sufficiently popular in your area... well, the same as for Uber, above. The particular manner in which the lack of options, may, depending on the particular state and the particular service involved, be more dramatic than the case with most corporate goods or services. OTOH, depending on the particular state and service, you may have a lot more direct input into the decision making behind providing the service and how the state reacts to opting out, in the first place.

danielweber 10y ago
Uber isn't a monopoly. For all the scummy things that Uber has done, they have avoided the most scummy thing they could do to become a monopoly: driver lock-in, making their drivers commit to only drive for them and not for Lyft. Susan Fowler's post has me pretty fed up with Uber, but for some reason greyballing doesn't bother me at all.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Uber isn't a monopoly. Like every startup (and most companies), it aims to be; a moat is pricing power is an absence of substitute is monopoly.
  - danielweber 10y ago
    Sure, they want to be a monopoly. But they're not. Seriously, how do they get lock-in of riders or drivers? Installing a second app is a really really low bar. You can't do predatory pricing forever.
    - 10y ago

freeflight 10y ago

>If I don't like Uber, I can... stop using Uber Keep in mind, this is only possible as long as there's an actual alternative to Uber. Once they, or any other multinational for that matter, manage to establish a monopoly you will be flat out of other options. Even worse: Once they are well aware of their monopoly they will abuse it in every imaginable way. Don't be evil.. at least until you are big enough. >It seems pretty clear to me which is more immoral. No, it's not. If you dislike "government" so much you are always free to move to a place where there's less or even none of it. Case in point: Somalia has barely any government to speak of, pretty much no regulations and very high rates of firearms ownership, it's basically "libertarian utopia". Strangely enough, barely any libertarians would want to live there?

lacampbell 10y ago
No, it's not. If you dislike "government" so much you are always free to move to a place where there's less or even none of it. Case in point: Somalia has barely any government to speak of, pretty much no regulations and very high rates of firearms ownership, it's basically "libertarian utopia". Strangely enough, barely any libertarians would want to live there? Oh, a Somalia expert. I was wondering when one of these people would pop up in this discussion. I'm sure I can learn a lot from you actually - I don't know much about the place at all. Can I ask you why you think Somalia doesn't have any government to speak of? Somalia has had a central government since 2007 - but I'm sure you already knew that. I'm also curious about your opinion of the Barre Administration and the (presumably) high standard of living the government provided during that time.
- freeflight 10y ago
  I never claimed to be an "expert" on Somalia, I merely pointed out that it's among those countries that have what supposedly makes a good "libertarian utopia": Barely any regulations, due to the government being ineffective at actually enforcing them, and high rates of firearms ownership. >Somalia has had a central government since 2007 - but I'm sure you already knew that. They have some government going that is barely able to project itself across the country. >I'm also curious about your opinion of the Barre Administration and the (presumably) high standard of living the government provided during that time. That's a non-sequitur, just because some governments failed/had been ineffective at what they're supposed to do, does not mean that all of them are failing/are ineffective at what they are trying to do.

st3v3r 10y ago

I have far, far, far, far, far more avenues to influence the US government than I have to influence a large company which is acting in a harmful manner. If a company is spewing pollution into the air, my not using them isn't going to do jack shit to stop them from polluting the air.