4 ms·

I can understand people arguing for the rule of law. Yes, we have laws, and they should be followed. Breaking them carries the risk of punishment. What I can't

I can understand people arguing for the rule of law. Yes, we have laws, and they should be followed. Breaking them carries the risk of punishment. What I can't understand is the moral grandstanding, e.g. "What gave him the right?" Are taxicab medallions worth it? I never take it seriously when someone starts talking like this about the marriage between taxis and local governments, like it was some holy industry that didn't deserve to be disrupted. Imagine how long it would have taken for local governments to "fix" something like that. Can you explain to me what it would take for a city council to (1) identify a problem (and in a timely manner, instead of twenty years of "if it ain't broke don't fix it"), (2) come up with a solution, and (3) somehow prioritize this ahead of all of the other important things they work on? You are correct, no one handed Travis Kalanick the "right" to change something, but I'm okay with the fact that he took it upon himself.

msmith10101 9y ago
What, exactly, has been fixed? What leads you to believe that the supply of Uber driver's will exceed zero once Uber can no longer lose over a billion dollars a quarter in subsidizing trips to pay these drivers more than minimum wage? Uber spun up self driving cars because it realized that it does not have a product or a business model.
- kamaal 9y ago
  Well again, people will vote with their wallets. Which ever way it goes, its fine and fair.
geofft 9y ago
> Are taxicab medallions worth it? I'm in favor of the rule of law. If I was in favor of the rule of law when it did good things and not when it did bad things (and I ready admit that the medallion system is one of the bad things), and wanted outside companies with private capital to ignore the rule of law to fix the bad things... I wouldn't be in favor of the rule of law at all. The ultimate question is who we choose to decide whether things are good or bad. If you support the rule of law in a democracy, you have the democratic process. If you support companies outspending and outmaneuvering local governments, you're entrusting capital with making these decisions, and they probably won't reflect the will of the people. It is, to be clear, an entirely legitimate political perspective to believe that we'll get a better society by letting the holder of the most capital make decisions instead of letting the people each have one vote. But that's a very strong claim that should be made clearly, and those who believe in democracy even when democracy happens to produce occasional bad outcomes are not particularly grandstanding, just believing in democracy.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  Except medallions are goverened by rules and regulations, not so much law. Violating the medallion rule isn't breaking a law. You pay a fine. If you're good with that, then go ahead; we all pay fines of convenience from time to time (late payments, overstaying in a parking space etc). So I'm fine with rule of law, and fine with getting fined for violations of medallion regulations.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    Uber violated laws well beyond medallion regulations.
- Aunche 9y ago
  It doesn't have to be black and white. The purpose of democracy is to reflect the will of the people, but it's not efficient. If more people agree with Uber than some antiquated laws, I have no problem with supporting Uber. Tesla also broke laws by selling their cars without going through a dealership, but I don't think anyone has a problem with that.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    Those cars were sold over the Internet; buying a car from another state is regulated by federal law. I agree that not every law is just, but some are less just than others.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    > If more people agree with Uber than some antiquated laws, I have no problem with supporting Uber. How do you know if "more people agree"? Has there been a public debate and a vote? If there was a vote, it would be direct democracy, which has some serious drawbacks. One is that most people have very little time to become informed on these issues; that's why they elect representatives to deal with them. Finally, straight majority rule is just mob rule. Someone said, 'democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner'. What if the majority wanted to take your house away? Take your business away? Stop someone from speaking? Stop the minority party from accepting donations? That's why we have the rule of law, not the rule of the majority.

msmith10101 9y ago

What, exactly, has been fixed? What leads you to believe that the supply of Uber driver's will exceed zero once Uber can no longer lose over a billion dollars a quarter in subsidizing trips to pay these drivers more than minimum wage? Uber spun up self driving cars because it realized that it does not have a product or a business model.

kamaal 9y ago
Well again, people will vote with their wallets. Which ever way it goes, its fine and fair.

geofft 9y ago

> Are taxicab medallions worth it? I'm in favor of the rule of law. If I was in favor of the rule of law when it did good things and not when it did bad things (and I ready admit that the medallion system is one of the bad things), and wanted outside companies with private capital to ignore the rule of law to fix the bad things... I wouldn't be in favor of the rule of law at all. The ultimate question is who we choose to decide whether things are good or bad. If you support the rule of law in a democracy, you have the democratic process. If you support companies outspending and outmaneuvering local governments, you're entrusting capital with making these decisions, and they probably won't reflect the will of the people. It is, to be clear, an entirely legitimate political perspective to believe that we'll get a better society by letting the holder of the most capital make decisions instead of letting the people each have one vote. But that's a very strong claim that should be made clearly, and those who believe in democracy even when democracy happens to produce occasional bad outcomes are not particularly grandstanding, just believing in democracy.

JoeAltmaier 9y ago
Except medallions are goverened by rules and regulations, not so much law. Violating the medallion rule isn't breaking a law. You pay a fine. If you're good with that, then go ahead; we all pay fines of convenience from time to time (late payments, overstaying in a parking space etc). So I'm fine with rule of law, and fine with getting fined for violations of medallion regulations.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  Uber violated laws well beyond medallion regulations.
Aunche 9y ago
It doesn't have to be black and white. The purpose of democracy is to reflect the will of the people, but it's not efficient. If more people agree with Uber than some antiquated laws, I have no problem with supporting Uber. Tesla also broke laws by selling their cars without going through a dealership, but I don't think anyone has a problem with that.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  Those cars were sold over the Internet; buying a car from another state is regulated by federal law. I agree that not every law is just, but some are less just than others.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > If more people agree with Uber than some antiquated laws, I have no problem with supporting Uber. How do you know if "more people agree"? Has there been a public debate and a vote? If there was a vote, it would be direct democracy, which has some serious drawbacks. One is that most people have very little time to become informed on these issues; that's why they elect representatives to deal with them. Finally, straight majority rule is just mob rule. Someone said, 'democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner'. What if the majority wanted to take your house away? Take your business away? Stop someone from speaking? Stop the minority party from accepting donations? That's why we have the rule of law, not the rule of the majority.