5 ms·
"...Uber told the 2022 hearing into Bauer’s complaint that it didn’t violate the human rights code because it’s an app and doesn’t provide a service as defined
by kohbo 3y ago
"...Uber told the 2022 hearing into Bauer’s complaint that it didn’t violate the human rights code because it’s an app and doesn’t provide a service as defined under the code."
What an argument.
- rchaud 3y ago[flagged]
- seneca 3y ago> The libertarian dream: no employees, no equipment, no liability. Not a single one of those things are librarian values.
- jakelazaroff 3y agoI mean, "no liability" definitely is.
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoNot at all. If you injure someone you pay damages. That's a completely different thing than e.g. giving them the ability to sue you for not providing something you never promised to provide.
- noqc 3y agoWhere do you draw the line between damages and externalities?
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoExternalities are damages. But that's not what these kinds of laws are trying to address. The market is willing to provide car service to people in wheelchairs, for a particular price. A lot of people in wheelchairs can't afford that price. The law is trying to create a subsidy. In principle the people who want the subsidy should be the ones paying for it. If you think subsidizing this is a good idea then you give your money to a charity, they use the money to subsidize the service, and then the market provides the service because somebody is paying for it. You can also decide you don't want to be a libertarian and instead you want the government to subsidize the service out of tax revenue. Libertarians don't like this, because now you're taking money from the people who didn't agree to subsidize it without their consent. But also, politicians don't like this, because it's spending tax money and they'd prefer to spend that on their cronies in some government-adjacent industry. So what politicians do instead is pass it as an unfunded mandate on whatever industry. This is still a tax, but now it's not a tax on e.g. rich people, it's a tax on other ride sharing customers and drivers. Who tend not to be rich people, because rich people have their own cars or private limousines or planes. Then we get a covert tax on the poor so that the overt tax money can go to defense contractors and other politically-connected corporations. It's at this point that you start to wonder if the libertarians might have been onto something.
- bastawhiz 3y agoYou don't have to promise it. The ADA promised it for you. It's the libertarian dream not to be forced to abide by those regulations.
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoHaving a politician you voted against promise something on your behalf is not a satisfying result.
- bastawhiz 3y agoBeing unsatisfying doesn't make it less of a law, and doesn't make the belief that you shouldn't have to follow those laws less libertarian.
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoYou could substitute any ideology and any laws they don't think should exist into that sentence. Laws prohibiting unions or punishing blasphemy are laws. The people who don't like those laws don't think you should have to follow them. Sometimes they're right.
- bastawhiz 3y agoYeah but there's not another ideology whose defining characteristic is opposing regulation in general
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoThere is an ideology where that is the defining characteristic, but it's not libertarianism, it's unadulterated anarchism. There are many ideologies that believe in limitations on government regulation, and they're not all the same. A libertarian is not going to be on board with an anarcho-communist's desire to abolish private property, or a strict constitutionalist's willingness to have state and local governments set price controls. Whether a private monopolist/cartel is regarded as a form of government is a rather important practical distinction. And hardly anyone is a pure anarchist -- how many people intend murder to be legal? So one way or another it's all about the details. And I'm assuming you're not a proponent of the opposite. Totalitarianism is the worst form of government including all of the others.
- spaceguillotine 3y agothis was proven true by the Libertarian backed Anti-Mask Rallies in Vegas, they did not care if they got people sick because they couldn't be held liable.
- thsksbd 3y agoAs a former libertarian that is exactly the opposite of the libertarian ideal. The libertarian ideal is a prodigiously litigious society where liability is the main driver of regulation.
- metamet 3y agoIs Dewey Decimal Classification a librarian value?
- seneca 3y agoGot a laugh out of that. Too late to edit the typo, unfortunately.
- oatmeal1 3y agoPlease leave political flame warring off HN.
- throw10920 3y agoYup - GP should read the guidelines[1] a few times. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html