7 ms·

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 onl

• 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?
    • hammock 10y ago
      When you buy shares
    • darawk 10y ago
      That's quite different. ISPs are regulated in a special way because they are monopolies. Monopolies occupy a middle ground between government and company. A business monopoly is like a mild/weak form of government.
    • modeless 10y ago
      Guess why you have no choice in ISP or power company? Because the government deliberately regulates those markets to reduce competition, often to the monopoly level. But they don't give you any compensation for that, such as a say in how the companies are run. This is the root cause of many problems in other markets too. High pharmaceutical prices? The government granted monopolies (patents) to those companies. Forced to use Windows? Microsoft has a government-granted monopoly (copyright) on Windows. Strange that limiting or revoking these state-granted monopoly rights is never considered as an option for remedying these problems. More relevant to this article, the government has historically put drastic limits on the number of taxis that can operate in a city, to the point where the permits required to operate one were once worth over a million dollars apiece. The need to disrupt that system is why Uber developed a culture of law-breaking to begin with.
    • magila 10y ago
      You chose indirectly when you voted for the city counselors who granted franchise agreements to your ISP and power company.
  • nemacol 10y ago
    You can choose not to use Uber and effectively ignore them but that does not stop them from having an influence on you, your community, and your country. It is true that being part of a government system is not a choice but without that community you would be dead or at least not an educated human with internet access. You cannot reap the rewards of government, community, and progress and then turn around and want to abolish the systems that made those things possible just because you cannot speed and murder people.
    • darawk 10y ago
      > You cannot reap the rewards of government, community, and progress and then turn around and want to abolish the systems that made those things possible just because you cannot speed and murder people. What systems are those, exactly? Protectionist laws for taxi drivers?
      • nemacol 10y ago
        Sure, if we stick with Uber and transportation topic. Labor laws, minimum wage, vehicle inspections, registration. systems and rules that were put in place as a response to what citizens felt were "wrongs" that needed to be addressed. When a organization ignores those laws then they are going against the will of the people.
        • karzeem 10y ago
          When given a choice, drivers stampeded from yellow cabs to Uber. Riders stampeded from yellow cabs to Uber. It's clear which one most parties prefer. And that suggests that all those government "services" around the provision of taxi service are valued at or below 0 by most people.
          • nemacol 10y ago
            You are speaking in broad terms and are making an assessment based on them. "drivers stampeded" "riders stampeded" "most parties" and you round all that off by saying that the value of the services offered were below 0. I cannot speak to the motivation of those that chose Uber as a customer or employer. Perhaps customers chose them because of the cost and convenient app. Perhaps employees chose them because of the low barrier to entry and flexible hours. Just because something different came along and grabbed everyone's attention does not mean that the gov services are valued at zero. There was a time when those yellow cabs had little to no rules or oversight. And that changed for a good reason - or at least a reason that people thought were good at a time. The rules for Uber are going to change too - there will be laws and rules designed to correct wrongs (either real or perceived). If the rules need to be different then people need to stand up and try to make the rules what they think they should be. My argument is that Uber should not decide on its own not to respect the will of the people.
  • sgift 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. Sure you can. Just leave their jurisdiction. I've heard Somalia is nice.
    • mindcrime 10y ago
      Just leave their jurisdiction. Their "jurisdiction" is invalid, so why should we leave?
      • sgift 10y ago
        It's invalid because you don't like it? I don't like many things, doesn't make them go away.
      • st3v3r 10y ago
        Your statement is false.
        • mindcrime 10y ago
          No it isn't.
    • lacampbell 10y ago
      What have you heard about Somalia? Please give a brief over view of what you know about it, and what about it you heard was nice.
      • usrusr 10y ago
        It demonstrates all the benefits of the very weak government some people wish for.
        • lacampbell 10y ago
          Please enlighten me on the quality of life in Somalia while it had a central government, vs before it had one. Statistics are slow and unreliable coming out of there, so feel free to limit you answer to the Barre Administration, as well as those areas that during the Civil war were under control of the Islamic Courts Union and the Transitional Goverments. I look forward to being amazed by the breadth of your knowledge about the history and conditions of Somalia and how it pertains to libertarianism.
• briandear 10y ago
  Why would you need write Uber a letter? Don't like it, don't use it. You don't have a say in government like you do with a private company. If I don't like the government, I have to hope that millions of other people agree with me. If I don't like a company, I alone can choose not to associate with it. My relationship with or without Uber is entirely up to me. I'm forced to endure the government whether I like it or not -- I could petition and protest until I'm blue and it won't make a difference to my life unless millions agree. With Uber, etc. I can simply stop buying their product and poof! They're out of my life.
  • mindcrime 10y ago
    Also, corporations - as a rule - don't have huge armies made up of many people with guns, tanks, jet fighters, nuclear bombs, etc., which they can use to impose their will on you. It's a lot easier to divest yourself of a bad relationship with a company, than a nation-state. (And no, "move" isn't a reasonable response to this, so don't waste your digital breath with any Somalia references).
    • st3v3r 10y ago
      Yeah, no. Move is about as reasonable as any other libertarian nonsense.
      • rpdillon 10y ago
        It seems reasonable to say switching cost is higher when it comes to citizenship than it is with which company you choose to get a taxi from.
    • devdas 10y ago
      They were divested of this for good reasons. http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/30739/is-there-a-precedent-for-private-companies-maintaining-a-military-force http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/30739/is-there-a-... is a good starting point
  • macintux 10y ago
• scarhill 10y ago
  If 49% of people stop using Uber, Uber loses almost half its revenue and will probably be forced to change its practices or go out of business. What happens if 49% of people don't vote for a US presidential candidate?
  • nemacol 10y ago
    Then we get President Trump.
• hammock 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. You can do ALL of those things with uber. You can vote as a shareholder, apply for a job, petition, volunteer, protest, etc...
  • maldusiecle 10y ago
    I would've thought that the difference between "vote" and "vote as a shareholder" would have been obvious enough, but just to make it clear: I don't consider it a good thing if the only people with a say in things are the ones who have money. This is the difference between a democracy and a corporation. I find it really unsettling how many people on HN seem to need this distinction explained.
    • hammock 10y ago
      Actually if you are a shareholder you DON'T have money...In the sense that you gave it up to have a say in the company. Similarly you give something up (social contract) to have a say in government You clearly come from a difference place on this issue so I don't expect you to understand what I'm saying but I'd be pleased if you did.
  • memmcgee 10y ago
    I doubt Uber is going to hire you if your goal is to change its business policies. Voting as a shareholder is also not the same as voting as a citizen. Everyone has the right to vote as a citizen, only the right h shareholders in Uber have the right to vote as a shareholder. Additionally, the problems like gerrymandering still appear in different forms in corporate structures. Often times founders have majority control of the company in the form of different shares. While this is good for the founders, this is bad for anyone else who doesn't like the direction of the company.
• mindcrime 10y ago
  You have a say in government - that is its stated goal and purpose. On paper. In practice... well, that's a whole different story. See: gerrymandering, voter fraud, ballot access restrictions, voter id laws, etc. Of the people for the people Even if that were ever actually the case, I think those days are long gone.
  • nemacol 10y ago
    It is frustrating, I agree. But those days can be had again if we get people to pay attention, focus on facts, and become engaged in the process. The reason gerrymandering, (I will not include voter fraud), access restrictions, etc etc is still a problem inspite of being identified as a problem is the collective will of the people to demand that these wrongs be correct. Imagine what the 2016 campaign and election would look like if everyone cared enough to learn and vote. Imagine what your town or state would look like if we could get 80% voting rates... [eyes twinkle as I stare off into the distance thinking of what could be]
• syrrim 10y ago
  Western government is a democracy in name only. The US was designed to be so large that no individual can expect to cause a change in its function, even if they organize large protests, or send torrents of mail. You could run for office, but you wouldn't get in, especially not off a platform of "forget national security, let's protect privacy!". Even if you did get in, you still need to organize hundreds of others who also got in to agree with and work towards your goal. Even if the legislative branch implemented your plan, you then need to wait as the executive branch caught up. Note that the NSA/FBI doesn't always work within the law - they are perfectly willing to break a few laws to make their jobs easier. You would have to infiltrate these organization, and instill a new culture that followed your value system. This would entail firing hosts of the leadership, and probably a large quantity of their subordinates, who would still be used to the old mode. This process would, if you took the time to do it correctly, take many more years than you would have to do it. The system is not only not designed to allow change easily, it is explicitly designed to make it as difficult as possible. The idea is that change shouldn't happen just because someone somewhere said they wanted something, and not enough people disagreed to stop it. Change should only happen when the vast majority of people have thought about it and agreed with it. This system is designed to prevent genocide or other forms of purposeful mass inequality. It is, however, extremely poor at giving an individual rights and freedoms. The assumption is that the individual should already have rights and freedoms, and all the government need do is not remove them. Barring some injunction with the state, an individual can then do whatever they choose. Capitalism can, when implemented properly (inb4 no true scotsman), act as a true democracy. It can allow each individual person the choice to do what that person chooses, independent of other peoples disagreement - even if the vast majority thinks the decision idiotic. Under our governments form of "democracy", what should an individual do if the majority of people don't want privacy, if those people are against privacy? There is nothing they can do! Whereas, even if everyone else in the world was a hardline supporter of a company like Uber, any individual could make the choice not to use them.
• deegles 10y ago
  I could get a job at Uber and try to fix it from the inside. Or lobby the government to regulate them.
• odbol 10y ago
  You don't really have a say in the US, at least. Laws pass 30% of the time, whether the voters love it or hate it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig