4 ms·

It's worth noting: as much as a low-quality source like this frames their headline as if devolving control to local government is an unalloyed good, the interp

It's worth noting: as much as a low-quality source like this frames their headline as if devolving control to local government is an unalloyed good, the interplay between the policy of nested polities (eg city, state, federal) is a much more complex issue, and one that people come down on the other side of fairly often (as a simple, dramatic example, the repeal of Roe v Wade is considered to be a nightmare scenario for many here, and yet it's precisely a case of federal law restricting the ability of local govts under the aegis of protecting individual rights[1]). I'm not expressing approval or disapproval of Lyft's actions, but I think it's worth pointing out what a low-quality source this is, given its reliance on leaning into the reader's biases right from the headline. Low-effort advocacy like this is almost never the best way to understand a topic, just as a libertarian think tank's hypothetical "Lyft protects consumers from authoritarian local govt's" headline wouldn't be. [1] I know this is a complicated issue and I'm really not interested in getting arguing it on its merits; it's just a convenient, widely-recognized example that takes the jurisdictional form I'm describing here.

dvtrn 8y ago
Merely curious since you went out of your way to twice refer to this as a 'low-quality source', but is there something remarkably un-qualitative about the writing on the topic of public transit in this blog-beyond your stated objections with this particular post? This post got me looking through the rest of the blog as someone passively interested in transit, but otherwise uninformed on the topic as an area of focused-study compared to Mr. Walker, here.
CaptainZapp 8y ago
What exactly is low quality about the source? Apart from the fact that Mr. Walker is without question an expert in public transport most of the blog post reprints a letter from the city of Portland outlining Lyft's dirty tacticts. The actual blog entry simply outlines the different requirements between dense - and suburban city areas. Your comment, smearing the original poster, seems to me vile and totally beyond the point.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  Repeatedly stating that only city folk can understand a city is uh... rather divisive and insults the reader's intelligence.
  - techsupporter 8y ago
    But that's not what the author wrote in context. He is pointing out that representatives from rural and suburban areas propose regulations and laws that benefit those types of areas and are often directly opposite of what people in a dense area need or want. That's not being insulting; that's the expected outcome. People should advocate for what is suitable for the area where they live. (What that happens to be and how to implement it is always up for debate.) But for a representative of a rural or suburban area to insist that a city have the same rules as--and no more than--a rural area is not feasible. That's what the author was getting at within the context of those two paragraphs. It's also the push/pull dynamic of cities and rural/suburban areas that's been going on in state governments since time immemorial.
  - cozzyd 8y ago
    It's not about understanding, it's about wanting what's best. For example, suburbanites probably want free parking and more highways in cities, even though that's not in the cities best interest.
SllX 8y ago
It’s not as complex as you make it out to be. Interested parties including the media and lobbyists advocate for whichever level of government best supports or has the best shot of advocating for whatever position they are taking on any given issue. You cited Roe v Wade, well there aren’t many that will simultaneously advocate for a pro-choice position yet also criticize the judgement in Roe v Wade in its legal or constitutional merits or lack thereof. For someone who holds a pro-choice position, Roe v Wade mostly “got the job done” on a national level, and whether SCOTUS should have kicked the buck up to Congress or back over to the States is entirely besides the point. Since it is a form of “law” not easily overturned except by another SCOTUS ruling or an Act of Congress which requires a consensus unlikely to form in either direction, it more or less protected the position of people who are pro-Choice regardless of whether SCOTUS was the correct place to make this call. No one is going to advocate a legal position that is counter to their ideological position except an exceptionally rare breed. Most people simply cannot compartmentalize the differences in their legal and ideological opinions to the point that when talking to them, they may as well be one and the same. Wherever there is a difference and contradiction, the ideological opinion will almost always win out, and the legal opinion will almost always be construed to support or will be completely overridden altogether. So whether it is access to abortion or digital taxis, people, corporations, lawyers and politicians alike are going to treat each level of government they have access to and each organ of government as tools to advance their positions. It isn’t these are the rules we have agreed to play by, our legal system is now just a very long multi-sided multi-dimensional game of legal Go to advance competing ideologies, power bases and profit motives. Maybe that is all Law ever was, but conceptually it isn’t that hard to grok this much: all levels of government are at the whims of people who will advance their interests at any cost and wherever they can gain ground. The primary thing keeping these whims in check are competing differing incompatible interests.

dvtrn 8y ago

Merely curious since you went out of your way to twice refer to this as a 'low-quality source', but is there something remarkably un-qualitative about the writing on the topic of public transit in this blog-beyond your stated objections with this particular post? This post got me looking through the rest of the blog as someone passively interested in transit, but otherwise uninformed on the topic as an area of focused-study compared to Mr. Walker, here.

CaptainZapp 8y ago

What exactly is low quality about the source? Apart from the fact that Mr. Walker is without question an expert in public transport most of the blog post reprints a letter from the city of Portland outlining Lyft's dirty tacticts. The actual blog entry simply outlines the different requirements between dense - and suburban city areas. Your comment, smearing the original poster, seems to me vile and totally beyond the point.

Dylan16807 8y ago
Repeatedly stating that only city folk can understand a city is uh... rather divisive and insults the reader's intelligence.
- techsupporter 8y ago
  But that's not what the author wrote in context. He is pointing out that representatives from rural and suburban areas propose regulations and laws that benefit those types of areas and are often directly opposite of what people in a dense area need or want. That's not being insulting; that's the expected outcome. People should advocate for what is suitable for the area where they live. (What that happens to be and how to implement it is always up for debate.) But for a representative of a rural or suburban area to insist that a city have the same rules as--and no more than--a rural area is not feasible. That's what the author was getting at within the context of those two paragraphs. It's also the push/pull dynamic of cities and rural/suburban areas that's been going on in state governments since time immemorial.
- cozzyd 8y ago
  It's not about understanding, it's about wanting what's best. For example, suburbanites probably want free parking and more highways in cities, even though that's not in the cities best interest.

SllX 8y ago

It’s not as complex as you make it out to be. Interested parties including the media and lobbyists advocate for whichever level of government best supports or has the best shot of advocating for whatever position they are taking on any given issue. You cited Roe v Wade, well there aren’t many that will simultaneously advocate for a pro-choice position yet also criticize the judgement in Roe v Wade in its legal or constitutional merits or lack thereof. For someone who holds a pro-choice position, Roe v Wade mostly “got the job done” on a national level, and whether SCOTUS should have kicked the buck up to Congress or back over to the States is entirely besides the point. Since it is a form of “law” not easily overturned except by another SCOTUS ruling or an Act of Congress which requires a consensus unlikely to form in either direction, it more or less protected the position of people who are pro-Choice regardless of whether SCOTUS was the correct place to make this call. No one is going to advocate a legal position that is counter to their ideological position except an exceptionally rare breed. Most people simply cannot compartmentalize the differences in their legal and ideological opinions to the point that when talking to them, they may as well be one and the same. Wherever there is a difference and contradiction, the ideological opinion will almost always win out, and the legal opinion will almost always be construed to support or will be completely overridden altogether. So whether it is access to abortion or digital taxis, people, corporations, lawyers and politicians alike are going to treat each level of government they have access to and each organ of government as tools to advance their positions. It isn’t these are the rules we have agreed to play by, our legal system is now just a very long multi-sided multi-dimensional game of legal Go to advance competing ideologies, power bases and profit motives. Maybe that is all Law ever was, but conceptually it isn’t that hard to grok this much: all levels of government are at the whims of people who will advance their interests at any cost and wherever they can gain ground. The primary thing keeping these whims in check are competing differing incompatible interests.