6 ms·

>it benefits Uber massively, and only incidentally benefits customers, and basically rips off the driver's time and investment. This is a very paternalistic at

>it benefits Uber massively, and only incidentally benefits customers, and basically rips off the driver's time and investment. This is a very paternalistic attitude toward the drivers, who are choosing to drive for Uber because they perceive it as being the best option available to them. It's also been an incredible boon to customers. >What you argue for is tantamount to anarchy, or at best rule by (economic) warlord. This is scaremongering. People being free to engage in voluntary economic interactions in no way resembles the violent imposition of warlordism. It's the regulatory enforcement agents running sting operations and fining people and impounding their cars that are engaging in strong-arming tactics that break the peace. Remember what the foundation of law is: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcing-the-law-is-inherently-violent/488828/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforci... It has no place restricting voluntary economic interactions.

ubernostrum 9y ago
This is a very paternalistic attitude toward the drivers, who are choosing to drive for Uber because they perceive it as being the best option available to them. Ah yes. They obviously think this is the best of all possible worlds. If they were given the option to do something else -- say, work as high-paid software engineers -- they'd obviously choose not to, and continue driving, because they've rationally evaluated the plethora of fulfilling career options available to them and settled on driving for Uber as the one which brings them the greatest overall happiness. Or perhaps they live in an economic system structured to disadvantage large numbers of people and leave them without many, if any, fulfilling options so that people like you can sit back and declare that a realistic choice was available to all of them, and they chose low-paying jobs (sorry, "independent contracting arrangements") with poor work conditions, thus making it entirely their fault and no-one else's.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  >Ah yes. They obviously think this is the best of all possible worlds. I didn't say they think it's the best of all possible worlds. I said they think it's the best option available to them. Making that particular relationship they've chosen to enter illegal, because you think it is not sufficiently lucrative for them, is not going to help them. The other options on the market are not going to improve by virtue of low pay options being made illegal. Every price level, including wages, is driven by supply and demand. Impositions like the kind you're advocating cannot possibly provide more benefit than harm, because they do not shift the demand curve to the right through an increase in the aggregate demand for labour. Only increases in productivity can do that. >If they were given the option to do something else -- say, work as high-paid software engineers -- they'd obviously choose not to, and continue driving, because they've rationally evaluated the plethora of fulfilling career options available to them and settled on driving for Uber as the one which brings them the greatest overall happiness. This is an extreme strawman. I never said they wouldn't exploit a better option if one were available. I said the best option available is the one they took, and making it illegal is not going make better options appear. >Or perhaps they live in an economic system structured to disadvantage large numbers of people and leave them without many I don't see any evidence that the economic system is designed through a conspiracy to disadvantage them. Market institutions like private property rights have facilitated a massive increase in wages for the typical person over the last 400 years. What you're advocating will slow wage growth. In fact, like the link I provided shows, the type of occupational and business licensing you advocate for is a major cause of growing income disparity. It has exactly the opposite effect of what you intend. >and they chose low-paying jobs (sorry, "independent contracting arrangements") with poor work conditions, thus making it entirely their fault and no-one else's. You're not helping them by making that option unavailable to them. It's a misguided paternalistic mindset to think that you are. By all means offer them the training so they can work as a highly paid software engineer (if you can), but don't take away their existing options out of a belief that you know better than them what's in their own best interest.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    I'd prefer to give them a universal basic income and a well-supported, cheap and/or free higher-education system so that they really do have options -- then they can choose to train for a job they'd prefer, or start a business of their own. In service of which, I will "paternalistically" redistribute some wealth, which fortunately is justifiable since all modern property ownership is rooted in the use of force and/or fraud, and thus is of course morally invalid.
    - Jabanga 9y ago
      >since all modern property ownership is rooted in the use of force and/or fraud, and thus is of course morally invalid. You're engaging in mass-defamation against anyone who owns anything. You're hiding behind the political process to illegitimately seize people's wealth. In a just society, you would be taken to court for libeling hundreds of millions of people with private wealth with your baseless demonization of them.
      - ubernostrum 9y ago
        You're engaging in mass-defamation against anyone who owns anything. Find me a plot of land whose present ownership isn't based on a chain leading to the last person who took it by force or fraud without someone else doing the same to them. I'll wait.
        Jabanga 9y ago
        You have to prove the chain goes back to force/fraud. People are presumed innocent unless proven guilty. Moreover, most types of property are not naturally occurring, and simply claimed, like land is. They are man-made and much more likely than land to have a chain of voluntary transfers linking their creation to their present possessor. You're making sweeping generalisations about those with wealth and making weak arguments to justify it.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
toss1 9y ago
No, this is NOT a paternalistic attitude towards drivers. It is the observation of their numerous complaints, lawsuits, and behaviour (typically quitting after only a few months). What you are saying is (or requires) that all people and companies are completely free agents with perfect knowledge. The fact is that there is an information asymmetry between Uber and the drivers, which Uber not only exploits but systematically lies into -- they make false representations about the economics of driving, convincing drivers to make investments in what looks like a good business opportunity. So yes, the hopeful drivers "perceive it as being the best option available to them". Some figure it out and never sign up, others do not and get screwed. It is apparently irrelevant to you that this perception is not based in reality but is due to Uber's deliberate and systematic dishonesty. ------- No, it is not scaremongering. Uber is not a form of Civil disobedience. And, if you are arguing that any law should be breakable at any time by anyone, then the only consequence of that is that laws become meaningless. People being able to engage in voluntary economic interactions outside of the context of a lawful societal structure leads EXACTLY to economic warlordism. Power will rapidly become concentrated in the small group of most unethical players, and they will rule the economy. See Russia, which is basically ruled by 22 Oligarchs. and this started where every single Russian citizen was given stock certificates for ownership in state enterprises. Yet in only a few short years, only 22 had the power. Moreover, the apparent rule of law is a farce. Read Red Notice by Bill Browder to get an insight into how it worked. And yes, the proper place of the law IS to restrain voluntary economic interactions so as to maintain a balanced marketplace, avoid the Tragedy Of The Commons, and other benefits to the broader society in which the economic transactions occur and which enables them in the first place. Get your head our of the simplistic Libertarian ideals which you spout (I start with Libertarianism too, but it isn't the end...), and read some history and Systems Dynamics.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  >It is the observation of their numerous complaints, lawsuits, and behaviour (typically quitting after only a few months). Of course it's paternalistic. You're saying they'll have a bad time if they CHOOSE to work for Uber, so to save them from their mistake, you want to deny them the option to make that decision in the first place. It's absolutely paternalistic. >What you are saying is (or requires) that all people and companies are completely free agents with perfect knowledge. No I'm not. I'm saying people have a right to make their own decisions, perfect or not. And don't presume you have more perfect knowledge of a potential Uber driver's best interests than they do. You and your judgements are just as imperfect as theirs, and more so on the matter of their own best interest, as you don't have the benefit of knowing their personal circumstances and options like they do. >People being able to engage in voluntary economic interactions outside of the context of a lawful societal structure leads EXACTLY to economic warlordism. Warlordism is the antithesis of voluntary interaction. 'Warlordism' in this case is just a buzzword to scaremonger people into consenting to giving up their rights to make decisions for their own lives. > Power will rapidly become concentrated in the small group of most unethical players, and they will rule the economy. More baseless appeals to fear to try to close the rational part of people's minds. Like the link I provided above shows, regulatory prohibitions on voluntary economic interaction is very likely the primary cause of growing income disparity. Removing such prohibitions would reduce the artificial and unearned economic rent accruing the higher income subset of the population for whom the fixed costs of regulatory compliance are easier to bear. >See Russia, which is basically ruled by 22 Oligarchs. and this started where every single Russian citizen was given stock certificates for ownership in state enterprises. Yet in only a few short years, only 22 had the power. No one said a market economy is perfect. The transition from a bankrupt and utterly corrupt nation under total control of the state to a marginally market based and slightly less corrupt state was bound to not happen without inequities and friction. Many of the oligarchs had ties to powerful groups under the authoritarian anti-market Soviet system, and were thus well positioned to take advantage of the changes that took place. You can't look at the stock ownership purchases in isolation if you want an accurate picture of what caused the inequality. >And yes, the proper place of the law IS to restrain voluntary economic interactions so as to maintain a balanced marketplace, avoid the Tragedy Of The Commons Voluntary economic interactions don't create a Tragedy of the Commons. There are market failures in externalities, but negative externalities are by definition created by nonvoluntary interactions. Under-production of positive externalities meanwhile is best solved by government provision of public goods. In other words, neither positive nor negative externalities justifies violating people's right to engage in voluntary interactions. >Get your head our of the simplistic Libertarian ideals which you spout (I start with Libertarianism too, but it isn't the end...), and read some history and Systems Dynamics. There is nothing simplistic about the Pareto Efficiency of a free market, and the evolutionary processes that lead to it evolving to configurations that better serve society over time. To bring this down to more concrete terms: you are not smarter or more knowledgeable than would-be Uber drivers. Most knowledge in the economy is diffused across the population as a whole, in the form of knowledge possessed by individuals of local conditions. Macroeconomic knowledge is efficiently transmitted through emergent processes like price signalling. Emergent systems, produced by asynchronous processes, are far more capable of organising an economy than top-down control produced by a serialised and highly simplistic 'public debate'. In your simplistic conceit, you don't understand that.

ubernostrum 9y ago

This is a very paternalistic attitude toward the drivers, who are choosing to drive for Uber because they perceive it as being the best option available to them. Ah yes. They obviously think this is the best of all possible worlds. If they were given the option to do something else -- say, work as high-paid software engineers -- they'd obviously choose not to, and continue driving, because they've rationally evaluated the plethora of fulfilling career options available to them and settled on driving for Uber as the one which brings them the greatest overall happiness. Or perhaps they live in an economic system structured to disadvantage large numbers of people and leave them without many, if any, fulfilling options so that people like you can sit back and declare that a realistic choice was available to all of them, and they chose low-paying jobs (sorry, "independent contracting arrangements") with poor work conditions, thus making it entirely their fault and no-one else's.

Jabanga 9y ago
>Ah yes. They obviously think this is the best of all possible worlds. I didn't say they think it's the best of all possible worlds. I said they think it's the best option available to them. Making that particular relationship they've chosen to enter illegal, because you think it is not sufficiently lucrative for them, is not going to help them. The other options on the market are not going to improve by virtue of low pay options being made illegal. Every price level, including wages, is driven by supply and demand. Impositions like the kind you're advocating cannot possibly provide more benefit than harm, because they do not shift the demand curve to the right through an increase in the aggregate demand for labour. Only increases in productivity can do that. >If they were given the option to do something else -- say, work as high-paid software engineers -- they'd obviously choose not to, and continue driving, because they've rationally evaluated the plethora of fulfilling career options available to them and settled on driving for Uber as the one which brings them the greatest overall happiness. This is an extreme strawman. I never said they wouldn't exploit a better option if one were available. I said the best option available is the one they took, and making it illegal is not going make better options appear. >Or perhaps they live in an economic system structured to disadvantage large numbers of people and leave them without many I don't see any evidence that the economic system is designed through a conspiracy to disadvantage them. Market institutions like private property rights have facilitated a massive increase in wages for the typical person over the last 400 years. What you're advocating will slow wage growth. In fact, like the link I provided shows, the type of occupational and business licensing you advocate for is a major cause of growing income disparity. It has exactly the opposite effect of what you intend. >and they chose low-paying jobs (sorry, "independent contracting arrangements") with poor work conditions, thus making it entirely their fault and no-one else's. You're not helping them by making that option unavailable to them. It's a misguided paternalistic mindset to think that you are. By all means offer them the training so they can work as a highly paid software engineer (if you can), but don't take away their existing options out of a belief that you know better than them what's in their own best interest.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  I'd prefer to give them a universal basic income and a well-supported, cheap and/or free higher-education system so that they really do have options -- then they can choose to train for a job they'd prefer, or start a business of their own. In service of which, I will "paternalistically" redistribute some wealth, which fortunately is justifiable since all modern property ownership is rooted in the use of force and/or fraud, and thus is of course morally invalid.
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    >since all modern property ownership is rooted in the use of force and/or fraud, and thus is of course morally invalid. You're engaging in mass-defamation against anyone who owns anything. You're hiding behind the political process to illegitimately seize people's wealth. In a just society, you would be taken to court for libeling hundreds of millions of people with private wealth with your baseless demonization of them.
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      You're engaging in mass-defamation against anyone who owns anything. Find me a plot of land whose present ownership isn't based on a chain leading to the last person who took it by force or fraud without someone else doing the same to them. I'll wait.
      - Jabanga 9y ago
        You have to prove the chain goes back to force/fraud. People are presumed innocent unless proven guilty. Moreover, most types of property are not naturally occurring, and simply claimed, like land is. They are man-made and much more likely than land to have a chain of voluntary transfers linking their creation to their present possessor. You're making sweeping generalisations about those with wealth and making weak arguments to justify it.
        dragonwriter 9y ago

toss1 9y ago

No, this is NOT a paternalistic attitude towards drivers. It is the observation of their numerous complaints, lawsuits, and behaviour (typically quitting after only a few months). What you are saying is (or requires) that all people and companies are completely free agents with perfect knowledge. The fact is that there is an information asymmetry between Uber and the drivers, which Uber not only exploits but systematically lies into -- they make false representations about the economics of driving, convincing drivers to make investments in what looks like a good business opportunity. So yes, the hopeful drivers "perceive it as being the best option available to them". Some figure it out and never sign up, others do not and get screwed. It is apparently irrelevant to you that this perception is not based in reality but is due to Uber's deliberate and systematic dishonesty. ------- No, it is not scaremongering. Uber is not a form of Civil disobedience. And, if you are arguing that any law should be breakable at any time by anyone, then the only consequence of that is that laws become meaningless. People being able to engage in voluntary economic interactions outside of the context of a lawful societal structure leads EXACTLY to economic warlordism. Power will rapidly become concentrated in the small group of most unethical players, and they will rule the economy. See Russia, which is basically ruled by 22 Oligarchs. and this started where every single Russian citizen was given stock certificates for ownership in state enterprises. Yet in only a few short years, only 22 had the power. Moreover, the apparent rule of law is a farce. Read Red Notice by Bill Browder to get an insight into how it worked. And yes, the proper place of the law IS to restrain voluntary economic interactions so as to maintain a balanced marketplace, avoid the Tragedy Of The Commons, and other benefits to the broader society in which the economic transactions occur and which enables them in the first place. Get your head our of the simplistic Libertarian ideals which you spout (I start with Libertarianism too, but it isn't the end...), and read some history and Systems Dynamics.

Jabanga 9y ago
>It is the observation of their numerous complaints, lawsuits, and behaviour (typically quitting after only a few months). Of course it's paternalistic. You're saying they'll have a bad time if they CHOOSE to work for Uber, so to save them from their mistake, you want to deny them the option to make that decision in the first place. It's absolutely paternalistic. >What you are saying is (or requires) that all people and companies are completely free agents with perfect knowledge. No I'm not. I'm saying people have a right to make their own decisions, perfect or not. And don't presume you have more perfect knowledge of a potential Uber driver's best interests than they do. You and your judgements are just as imperfect as theirs, and more so on the matter of their own best interest, as you don't have the benefit of knowing their personal circumstances and options like they do. >People being able to engage in voluntary economic interactions outside of the context of a lawful societal structure leads EXACTLY to economic warlordism. Warlordism is the antithesis of voluntary interaction. 'Warlordism' in this case is just a buzzword to scaremonger people into consenting to giving up their rights to make decisions for their own lives. > Power will rapidly become concentrated in the small group of most unethical players, and they will rule the economy. More baseless appeals to fear to try to close the rational part of people's minds. Like the link I provided above shows, regulatory prohibitions on voluntary economic interaction is very likely the primary cause of growing income disparity. Removing such prohibitions would reduce the artificial and unearned economic rent accruing the higher income subset of the population for whom the fixed costs of regulatory compliance are easier to bear. >See Russia, which is basically ruled by 22 Oligarchs. and this started where every single Russian citizen was given stock certificates for ownership in state enterprises. Yet in only a few short years, only 22 had the power. No one said a market economy is perfect. The transition from a bankrupt and utterly corrupt nation under total control of the state to a marginally market based and slightly less corrupt state was bound to not happen without inequities and friction. Many of the oligarchs had ties to powerful groups under the authoritarian anti-market Soviet system, and were thus well positioned to take advantage of the changes that took place. You can't look at the stock ownership purchases in isolation if you want an accurate picture of what caused the inequality. >And yes, the proper place of the law IS to restrain voluntary economic interactions so as to maintain a balanced marketplace, avoid the Tragedy Of The Commons Voluntary economic interactions don't create a Tragedy of the Commons. There are market failures in externalities, but negative externalities are by definition created by nonvoluntary interactions. Under-production of positive externalities meanwhile is best solved by government provision of public goods. In other words, neither positive nor negative externalities justifies violating people's right to engage in voluntary interactions. >Get your head our of the simplistic Libertarian ideals which you spout (I start with Libertarianism too, but it isn't the end...), and read some history and Systems Dynamics. There is nothing simplistic about the Pareto Efficiency of a free market, and the evolutionary processes that lead to it evolving to configurations that better serve society over time. To bring this down to more concrete terms: you are not smarter or more knowledgeable than would-be Uber drivers. Most knowledge in the economy is diffused across the population as a whole, in the form of knowledge possessed by individuals of local conditions. Macroeconomic knowledge is efficiently transmitted through emergent processes like price signalling. Emergent systems, produced by asynchronous processes, are far more capable of organising an economy than top-down control produced by a serialised and highly simplistic 'public debate'. In your simplistic conceit, you don't understand that.