8 ms·

As a Libertarian I find this downright revolting. Unions and government working together against progress and free market forces. It does nothing to improve q

As a Libertarian I find this downright revolting. Unions and government working together against progress and free market forces. It does nothing to improve quality of service or to allow competition to lower costs. It is simply repugnant. When will people realize that unions --and those in government who favor and feed them-- are helping destroy this country from the inside out?

adestefan 14y ago
You had me until you solely ripped on unions. If there was one or two taxi companies they would be doing the exact same thing.
- uvdiv 14y ago
  It's union politics which gets their legislation passed. No one would support price-raising taxi cartels if the question weren't coated with rhetoric about wages and welfare. Let a taxi union explain it: http://www.nytwa.org/campaigns/stopillegalpickups http://www.nytwa.org/campaigns/stopillegalpickups
  - adestefan 14y ago
    We support price raising corporate cartels for electricity, natural gas, cell service, cable, water, and in most cases mass transit. There are already places that have banned internet delivery coops and places have tried to outlaw selling solar energy back to the grid.
    - CamperBob2 14y ago
      We support price raising corporate cartels for electricity, natural gas, cell service, cable, water, and in most cases mass transit. Most of those are natural monopolies that require some degree of regulation for equitable service. Livery service is not a natural monopoly. There are already places that have banned internet delivery coops and places have tried to outlaw selling solar energy back to the grid. What does that have to do with the price of bread in Peoria?
      - fleitz 14y ago
        There's a lot of data pointing to the idea that even 'natural monopolies' benefit from competition. IIRC, Lubbock Texas has two hydro companies and Lubbock and other residents of two hydro company towns enjoy on average 20% lower rates.
    - uvdiv 14y ago
      Buying solar power from residential users is usually a loss to the utility (hence other ratepayers). Especially when they want to sell at retail electricity rates rather than wholesale -- which is what net metering essentially does. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/business/solar-payments-set-off-a-fairness-debate.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/business/solar-payments-se...
  - mathgladiator 14y ago
    Wow, that page ... was creepy. Gauh, does this mean I'm a libertarian?
  - taligent 14y ago
    Right. Because corporations can't lobby to get legislation passed. I will never understand people that bash unions. They serve an important counterweight in society.
    - fleitz 14y ago
      Certainly employees should be able to freely associate into unions, however like many groups unions have both positive and negative results. Some people feel that the positives outweigh the negatives and some feel the negatives outweigh the positives. I feel that unions have historically been very positive. In more recent years I think they've hindered progress for example in Vancouver up until the 80s it was required that every container was unloaded and reloaded simply to ensure jobs rather than letting consumers enjoy the efficiencies created by gantry cranes and containerized shipping. Like anyone else unions use their power for both good and bad. From the perspective of their members I can understand how reloading containers would be a good thing, but from the perspective of anyone who bought goods that were shipped through the port of Vancouver I would see it as wasteful. I see nothing wrong with bashing unions for the things they do which are destructive to society at large. I'm not sure what I'd think of a person who thought that unions had never done anything bad.
      - pgeorgi 14y ago
        "for example in Vancouver up until the 80s it was required that every container was unloaded and reloaded simply to ensure jobs rather than letting consumers enjoy the efficiencies created by gantry cranes and containerized shipping" ... Where one other option would have been to accept the new tech in exchange for paying for education of those who have a useless job due to new technology - ie. employer gives up some of the monetary efficiency benefits for a limited number of years to reduce/reorganize the workforce responsibly. But I guess that would mean the end of the union and its personnel overhead, and the union would have to use its power for such an agreement instead of that unload/reload stunt. I just can't imagine being satisfied with a job that I know is utterly useless and just kept around to keep me working.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    I'll completely accept that some specific unions, almost always in concert with bits of government, get captured by organised crime in some places and then the market is then manipulated to serve neither the members of the union, or people represented by the government. This depends completely on the union and the government we are discussing however. I would also accept that this may be partly the case in this instance, given the behaviour. [edit] Though I find it less likely after having read eli's brief comment on the matter. That does not mean that unionism itself is the problem, but rather the culture of certain unions. In the same way that just because certain companies act badly doesn't mean that all do.
  - eli 14y ago
    Here's the thing: DC taxi drivers aren't unionized.
- eli 14y ago
  The funny thing is that in this case, I'm pretty sure it IS one or two taxi corporations behind these rules. DC doesn't really have a taxi union.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    Was thinking about this. If I ran a union for taxi drivers and Uber came to my city, I would just make sure that the union was open for sedan drivers to join as well.
chrischen 14y ago
And to think what motivates them to try so hard to do this is purely because of their self-interest.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  Yes, when your business is gated by a staggeringly powerful and wholly unaccountable entity, it's in your self-interest to get on their good side, regardless of the underlying ethics involved. Ric Romero has more at 11.
alecdibble 14y ago
And you don't think corporations themselves lobby government entities? It is a little silly to generalize this down to unions. The problem is government influence, not who did the influencing.
- kiba 14y ago
  Everyone is forced to lobby to ensure their interests are represented.
ktizo 14y ago
In libertarianism, presumably labour unions are free to flourish and do what they like as organisations in a market free of government intervention. Remember also that the history of labour unions predates their acceptance by government by a long margin. Trying to banish them or remove government support, or even as Adam Smith noted, making forming one a crime punishable by execution, does not seem to have stopped the formation of unions throughout history. So I don't think their existence is down to government, except in the reactive sense.
- chrischen 14y ago
  But isn't this what libertarians truly are opposed to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law?
  - ewillbefull 14y ago
    Libertarians do not support right-to-work laws... they interfere with the freedom of contract between an employer and a worker.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      That is an inaccurate blanket statement. Some libertarians, such as myself, actually can be pragmatic. (I can't say I like right to work laws, but I think they are necessary so long as unions, which I think are natural and legitimate market phenomenons, are weak) Edit: Right-to-work laws are not what I thought they were. What I meant to convey is that I am opposed to At-will Employment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment)so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment)so long as unions are weak.
      - ewillbefull 14y ago
        I think it's fair to say libertarians do not support right-to-work laws on principle, because the freedom of contract is used to justify dozens of other positions in their ideology. You cannot logically be a libertarian and support right-to-work laws. Can you find a single local libertarian party or recognized libertarian organization that supports right-to-work laws? Can you find enough to challenge my "blanket statement"?
eli 14y ago
Huh? This has nothing to do with unions. DC does not have a particularly strong or notable union in the taxi industry. The lobbyists fighting Uber are almost certainly paid for directly by the small number of large cab corporations operating in DC--not a labor union. I guess we can debate the merits of unions, but it has nothing to do with the fight over Uber in DC. The guy mentioned elsewhere in these comments who was arrested for trying to outright bribe the taxi commission? He wasn't a union boss, he was trying to buy favors for his own business.
- kmfrk 14y ago
  It was a stump soap box speech. :P
confluence 14y ago
As a liberal I find libertarians downright revolting. When will these society supported and overwhelming rich (or "going to be rich") technical males realise that the government created the industries they worked in through decades long investment where the free market failed to do so. When will they realize that their entire philosophy centers around a sociopathic psychological bias (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis) and should essentially be known as a little more than a psychological disorder? When will they understand that free markets are not natural phenomena but the artificial creation of governments for the benefit of society and subject to the corrupting influences of market participants which turn most free markets into cartels without the pressure of regulation holding it back?
- mathgladiator 14y ago
  I find taxis revolting. The ones I've been are in unprofessional, unclean, and noisy. Uber costs more, and people are using it. This meas that the service provided by the current taxi system is inadequate. How would you propose that the quality that Uber provides come into existence without some kind of disruption/free-market/'rule-breakers'?
  - Nrsolis 14y ago
    The reason people are choosing Uber is because the taxis suck. It's really that simple. Uber costs more and people will pay it. They pay it because you know what you are getting and you know that if you dont get it then the company will make it right. Uber is the most transparent company I've been able to find when it comes to auto transport. They give you a receipt with the route and the fare. Every component of the tally is right there for you. They even round down the total. What Taxis are pissed about is that there is a viable competitor for the BEST fares. Taxis dont want to upgrade their product but they want to keep the top of the market. I say good riddance. If every taxi in DC went out of business I wouldn't shed a single tear. edit:typo.
    - snogglethorpe 14y ago
msbarnett 14y ago
DC taxi driver aren't unionized. But don't let the facts get in the way of your uninformed rant.
- dmix 14y ago
  Some sources, the only organization for DC taxi drivers is the DC Professional Taxi Driver Association [1] which acts as somewhat of a lobbying group. Licensing is handled by District of Columbia Taxicab Commission [2]. [1] http://www.dcptda.org/ http://www.dcptda.org/ [2] http://dctaxi.dc.gov/dctaxi/site/default.asp http://dctaxi.dc.gov/dctaxi/site/default.asp
  - eli 14y ago
    That is not the only organization for DC taxi drivers. Here's another https://www.facebook.com/pages/Small-Business-Association-of-DC-Taxicab-Drivers/148832725230703 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Small-Business-Association-of... and there are more. None of them are particularly powerful or well-connected. It's nothing like New York.
rayiner 14y ago
There are legitimate reasons for the taxi regulations and the taxi monopoly. Why does every article about some regulatory body/union overstepping have to turn into a platform for some aspie libertarian rant about regulation/unions in general? This is why we can't have nice things. In Europe, people can complain about one bad union or one bad regulation without people turning it into a screed about unions or regulations in general.
jowiar 14y ago
The issue with Taxis, in particular, is that they need to be regulated in some way. When hiring a taxi consists of standing on the curb with arm extended, while someone ducks out of traffic to pick you up, there is very little negotiation that can be done. It makes sense that, within a city, the economics of a taxi transaction be defined in advance. That said, I fully believe Uber should be allow to do its thing. A transaction initiated by Smartphone App allows the passenger sufficient ability to consent to whatever deviation from "standard" terms the driver may provide.
molmalo 14y ago
And this is what Google will have to fight when they finally get ready to offer a driverless-taxi service.

adestefan 14y ago

You had me until you solely ripped on unions. If there was one or two taxi companies they would be doing the exact same thing.

uvdiv 14y ago
It's union politics which gets their legislation passed. No one would support price-raising taxi cartels if the question weren't coated with rhetoric about wages and welfare. Let a taxi union explain it: http://www.nytwa.org/campaigns/stopillegalpickups http://www.nytwa.org/campaigns/stopillegalpickups
- adestefan 14y ago
  We support price raising corporate cartels for electricity, natural gas, cell service, cable, water, and in most cases mass transit. There are already places that have banned internet delivery coops and places have tried to outlaw selling solar energy back to the grid.
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    We support price raising corporate cartels for electricity, natural gas, cell service, cable, water, and in most cases mass transit. Most of those are natural monopolies that require some degree of regulation for equitable service. Livery service is not a natural monopoly. There are already places that have banned internet delivery coops and places have tried to outlaw selling solar energy back to the grid. What does that have to do with the price of bread in Peoria?
    - fleitz 14y ago
      There's a lot of data pointing to the idea that even 'natural monopolies' benefit from competition. IIRC, Lubbock Texas has two hydro companies and Lubbock and other residents of two hydro company towns enjoy on average 20% lower rates.
  - uvdiv 14y ago
    Buying solar power from residential users is usually a loss to the utility (hence other ratepayers). Especially when they want to sell at retail electricity rates rather than wholesale -- which is what net metering essentially does. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/business/solar-payments-set-off-a-fairness-debate.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/business/solar-payments-se...
- mathgladiator 14y ago
  Wow, that page ... was creepy. Gauh, does this mean I'm a libertarian?
- taligent 14y ago
  Right. Because corporations can't lobby to get legislation passed. I will never understand people that bash unions. They serve an important counterweight in society.
  - fleitz 14y ago
    Certainly employees should be able to freely associate into unions, however like many groups unions have both positive and negative results. Some people feel that the positives outweigh the negatives and some feel the negatives outweigh the positives. I feel that unions have historically been very positive. In more recent years I think they've hindered progress for example in Vancouver up until the 80s it was required that every container was unloaded and reloaded simply to ensure jobs rather than letting consumers enjoy the efficiencies created by gantry cranes and containerized shipping. Like anyone else unions use their power for both good and bad. From the perspective of their members I can understand how reloading containers would be a good thing, but from the perspective of anyone who bought goods that were shipped through the port of Vancouver I would see it as wasteful. I see nothing wrong with bashing unions for the things they do which are destructive to society at large. I'm not sure what I'd think of a person who thought that unions had never done anything bad.
    - pgeorgi 14y ago
      "for example in Vancouver up until the 80s it was required that every container was unloaded and reloaded simply to ensure jobs rather than letting consumers enjoy the efficiencies created by gantry cranes and containerized shipping" ... Where one other option would have been to accept the new tech in exchange for paying for education of those who have a useless job due to new technology - ie. employer gives up some of the monetary efficiency benefits for a limited number of years to reduce/reorganize the workforce responsibly. But I guess that would mean the end of the union and its personnel overhead, and the union would have to use its power for such an agreement instead of that unload/reload stunt. I just can't imagine being satisfied with a job that I know is utterly useless and just kept around to keep me working.
- ktizo 14y ago
  I'll completely accept that some specific unions, almost always in concert with bits of government, get captured by organised crime in some places and then the market is then manipulated to serve neither the members of the union, or people represented by the government. This depends completely on the union and the government we are discussing however. I would also accept that this may be partly the case in this instance, given the behaviour. [edit] Though I find it less likely after having read eli's brief comment on the matter. That does not mean that unionism itself is the problem, but rather the culture of certain unions. In the same way that just because certain companies act badly doesn't mean that all do.
- eli 14y ago
  Here's the thing: DC taxi drivers aren't unionized.
eli 14y ago
The funny thing is that in this case, I'm pretty sure it IS one or two taxi corporations behind these rules. DC doesn't really have a taxi union.
- ktizo 14y ago
  Was thinking about this. If I ran a union for taxi drivers and Uber came to my city, I would just make sure that the union was open for sedan drivers to join as well.

chrischen 14y ago

And to think what motivates them to try so hard to do this is purely because of their self-interest.

CamperBob2 14y ago
Yes, when your business is gated by a staggeringly powerful and wholly unaccountable entity, it's in your self-interest to get on their good side, regardless of the underlying ethics involved. Ric Romero has more at 11.

alecdibble 14y ago

And you don't think corporations themselves lobby government entities? It is a little silly to generalize this down to unions. The problem is government influence, not who did the influencing.

kiba 14y ago
Everyone is forced to lobby to ensure their interests are represented.

ktizo 14y ago

In libertarianism, presumably labour unions are free to flourish and do what they like as organisations in a market free of government intervention. Remember also that the history of labour unions predates their acceptance by government by a long margin. Trying to banish them or remove government support, or even as Adam Smith noted, making forming one a crime punishable by execution, does not seem to have stopped the formation of unions throughout history. So I don't think their existence is down to government, except in the reactive sense.

chrischen 14y ago
But isn't this what libertarians truly are opposed to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law?
- ewillbefull 14y ago
  Libertarians do not support right-to-work laws... they interfere with the freedom of contract between an employer and a worker.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    That is an inaccurate blanket statement. Some libertarians, such as myself, actually can be pragmatic. (I can't say I like right to work laws, but I think they are necessary so long as unions, which I think are natural and legitimate market phenomenons, are weak) Edit: Right-to-work laws are not what I thought they were. What I meant to convey is that I am opposed to At-will Employment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment)so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment)so long as unions are weak.
    - ewillbefull 14y ago
      I think it's fair to say libertarians do not support right-to-work laws on principle, because the freedom of contract is used to justify dozens of other positions in their ideology. You cannot logically be a libertarian and support right-to-work laws. Can you find a single local libertarian party or recognized libertarian organization that supports right-to-work laws? Can you find enough to challenge my "blanket statement"?

eli 14y ago

Huh? This has nothing to do with unions. DC does not have a particularly strong or notable union in the taxi industry. The lobbyists fighting Uber are almost certainly paid for directly by the small number of large cab corporations operating in DC--not a labor union. I guess we can debate the merits of unions, but it has nothing to do with the fight over Uber in DC. The guy mentioned elsewhere in these comments who was arrested for trying to outright bribe the taxi commission? He wasn't a union boss, he was trying to buy favors for his own business.

kmfrk 14y ago
It was a stump soap box speech. :P

confluence 14y ago

As a liberal I find libertarians downright revolting. When will these society supported and overwhelming rich (or "going to be rich") technical males realise that the government created the industries they worked in through decades long investment where the free market failed to do so. When will they realize that their entire philosophy centers around a sociopathic psychological bias (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis) and should essentially be known as a little more than a psychological disorder? When will they understand that free markets are not natural phenomena but the artificial creation of governments for the benefit of society and subject to the corrupting influences of market participants which turn most free markets into cartels without the pressure of regulation holding it back?

mathgladiator 14y ago
I find taxis revolting. The ones I've been are in unprofessional, unclean, and noisy. Uber costs more, and people are using it. This meas that the service provided by the current taxi system is inadequate. How would you propose that the quality that Uber provides come into existence without some kind of disruption/free-market/'rule-breakers'?
- Nrsolis 14y ago
  The reason people are choosing Uber is because the taxis suck. It's really that simple. Uber costs more and people will pay it. They pay it because you know what you are getting and you know that if you dont get it then the company will make it right. Uber is the most transparent company I've been able to find when it comes to auto transport. They give you a receipt with the route and the fare. Every component of the tally is right there for you. They even round down the total. What Taxis are pissed about is that there is a viable competitor for the BEST fares. Taxis dont want to upgrade their product but they want to keep the top of the market. I say good riddance. If every taxi in DC went out of business I wouldn't shed a single tear. edit:typo.
  - snogglethorpe 14y ago

msbarnett 14y ago

DC taxi driver aren't unionized. But don't let the facts get in the way of your uninformed rant.

dmix 14y ago
Some sources, the only organization for DC taxi drivers is the DC Professional Taxi Driver Association [1] which acts as somewhat of a lobbying group. Licensing is handled by District of Columbia Taxicab Commission [2]. [1] http://www.dcptda.org/ http://www.dcptda.org/ [2] http://dctaxi.dc.gov/dctaxi/site/default.asp http://dctaxi.dc.gov/dctaxi/site/default.asp
- eli 14y ago
  That is not the only organization for DC taxi drivers. Here's another https://www.facebook.com/pages/Small-Business-Association-of-DC-Taxicab-Drivers/148832725230703 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Small-Business-Association-of... and there are more. None of them are particularly powerful or well-connected. It's nothing like New York.

rayiner 14y ago

There are legitimate reasons for the taxi regulations and the taxi monopoly. Why does every article about some regulatory body/union overstepping have to turn into a platform for some aspie libertarian rant about regulation/unions in general? This is why we can't have nice things. In Europe, people can complain about one bad union or one bad regulation without people turning it into a screed about unions or regulations in general.

jowiar 14y ago

The issue with Taxis, in particular, is that they need to be regulated in some way. When hiring a taxi consists of standing on the curb with arm extended, while someone ducks out of traffic to pick you up, there is very little negotiation that can be done. It makes sense that, within a city, the economics of a taxi transaction be defined in advance. That said, I fully believe Uber should be allow to do its thing. A transaction initiated by Smartphone App allows the passenger sufficient ability to consent to whatever deviation from "standard" terms the driver may provide.

molmalo 14y ago

And this is what Google will have to fight when they finally get ready to offer a driverless-taxi service.