6 ms·

Does anyone pick up on how fundamentally insane this whole deal is? Why exactly do we have to submit to this nonsense? A world where it's possible for people t

Does anyone pick up on how fundamentally insane this whole deal is? Why exactly do we have to submit to this nonsense? A world where it's possible for people to ambiguously decide whether or not it's okay to simply organize taxi rides, or share a room you own and operate, because some government-sanctioned oligopoly doesn't like it… How did we get here? I'd love it if people would venture to refute me on this rather than simply downvoting my posts.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
woofyman 13y ago
If you live in a Condo, you've agreed to the by laws of the association. If you lease, you've signed a contract with your landlord.
- microcolonel 13y ago
  Voluntarily at that, isn't that great? Your landlords should not be encouraged to peek into my apartment.
  - woofyman 13y ago
    Why do you feel you can ignore the terms of a contract you voluntarily signed ?
    - JoshTriplett 13y ago
      The root comment of this thread was talking about government regulation. You responded with a comment about contracts with landlords or condo associations, to which the response was that those are voluntary agreements (by contrast with government regulation). Nothing in that is talking about ignoring the terms of a voluntary contract; the point is that the government regulations that affect businesses like Uber and AirBnB are not voluntary contracts.
      - _delirium 13y ago
        > the point is that the government regulations that affect businesses like Uber and AirBnB are not voluntary contracts. In the AirBnB case, I don't think of it as much different. Homeowner's associations are the way you'd arrange land-use regulations for a large area through contract law, and are becoming the more common way of doing it in places like Texas. In other areas it's done by municipal governments, the more traditional method. But the impact on freedom is more or less than same: by buying property in the jurisdiction of one of these entities, you agree to use the property in accordance with [long list of rules], plus any future rules that may be made in accordance with [procedure]. And the way to avoid it if you don't like the rules, is to buy property not within the homeowner's association or municipality whose land-use regulations you don't like. This happens through both private-sector and public-sector mechanisms pretty similarly, just the private-sector ones are developing more recently. There are other important differences between homeowners' associations and municipalities, such as general police power. But this particular one, whether you can turn your home into a hotel in a particular area, is one where municipal governments are basically equivalent to a standardized bundle of contract law, as evidenced by the fact that in some areas the same regulations are literally being implemented as a standardized bundle of contract law.
        microcolonel 13y ago
        But who would buy a house, with a non-negotiable contract preventing them from using it to house some people temporarily for some minor profit? If your road maintenance company doesn't care, and you own the land, what's to stop you other than a voluntarily win-win association?
asmithmd1 13y ago
This is only the most visible examples of how our representatives are actively acting not in the best interest of almost all of the population. There is waste and graft so vast it boggles the imagination. Seven of the 10 highest income counties are the counties surrounding Washington D.C. All these people making high incomes, and all producing exactly nothing that anyone in the rest of the country wants or can use. This year the US federal government will spend $38,000 per household ($9,000 of that spending is borrowed.) I imagine the three selectmen in my little town of 10,000 households could field a pretty good army for the $380,000,000 that will be spent on behalf of our town this year.
adventured 13y ago
I agree. The so called sharing economy is the market attempting to route around a hyper regulated and incumbent protected economy. Just take a look at the industries listed: Automobiles (hyper regulated). Car dealerships (hyper regulated). Telecom (hyper regulated). Car rentals (incumbent protected; try competing with Enterprise and setting up shop in 400 airports). Taxis (hyper regulated and incumbent protected). Textbooks (protected cartel; shielded both by the establishment and politics of education). Lending and fundraising (nothing is more regulated than finance and banking). Restaurants (in every major city you'll have to bribe government officials to stay open or to set-up). Major event and city parking (try not to get whacked by the mafia while you're setting up competition, and then pray you can bribe your way into approvals to get started while the incumbents try to keep you out with denied permits). Condos / apartments / etc. (that's an easy one, it's a nightmare being a landlord in places like NYC due to the burden of government regulations and committees that can dictate every nuance for housing).
johnrob 13y ago
Lyft and Sidecar do a good job of vetting drivers. This helps prevent passengers from dying while using the service. The high quality of vetting is shielding you from seeing the real issue: what if they didn't vet drivers? Wouldn't that be a public hazard? A few examples of good behavior does not disprove the need for laws that prevent bad behavior.
- temphn 13y ago
  If they didn't vet, people wouldn't use the service. And the government demonstrably does not do a better job of vetting than private individuals. Some examples: has lower quality employees, it makes it impossible to "discriminate" on many different dimensions, and it certainly does not have a Canada-styled skilled immigration policy.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

woofyman 13y ago

If you live in a Condo, you've agreed to the by laws of the association. If you lease, you've signed a contract with your landlord.

microcolonel 13y ago
Voluntarily at that, isn't that great? Your landlords should not be encouraged to peek into my apartment.
- woofyman 13y ago
  Why do you feel you can ignore the terms of a contract you voluntarily signed ?
  - JoshTriplett 13y ago
    The root comment of this thread was talking about government regulation. You responded with a comment about contracts with landlords or condo associations, to which the response was that those are voluntary agreements (by contrast with government regulation). Nothing in that is talking about ignoring the terms of a voluntary contract; the point is that the government regulations that affect businesses like Uber and AirBnB are not voluntary contracts.
    - _delirium 13y ago
      > the point is that the government regulations that affect businesses like Uber and AirBnB are not voluntary contracts. In the AirBnB case, I don't think of it as much different. Homeowner's associations are the way you'd arrange land-use regulations for a large area through contract law, and are becoming the more common way of doing it in places like Texas. In other areas it's done by municipal governments, the more traditional method. But the impact on freedom is more or less than same: by buying property in the jurisdiction of one of these entities, you agree to use the property in accordance with [long list of rules], plus any future rules that may be made in accordance with [procedure]. And the way to avoid it if you don't like the rules, is to buy property not within the homeowner's association or municipality whose land-use regulations you don't like. This happens through both private-sector and public-sector mechanisms pretty similarly, just the private-sector ones are developing more recently. There are other important differences between homeowners' associations and municipalities, such as general police power. But this particular one, whether you can turn your home into a hotel in a particular area, is one where municipal governments are basically equivalent to a standardized bundle of contract law, as evidenced by the fact that in some areas the same regulations are literally being implemented as a standardized bundle of contract law.
      - microcolonel 13y ago
        But who would buy a house, with a non-negotiable contract preventing them from using it to house some people temporarily for some minor profit? If your road maintenance company doesn't care, and you own the land, what's to stop you other than a voluntarily win-win association?

asmithmd1 13y ago

This is only the most visible examples of how our representatives are actively acting not in the best interest of almost all of the population. There is waste and graft so vast it boggles the imagination. Seven of the 10 highest income counties are the counties surrounding Washington D.C. All these people making high incomes, and all producing exactly nothing that anyone in the rest of the country wants or can use. This year the US federal government will spend $38,000 per household ($9,000 of that spending is borrowed.) I imagine the three selectmen in my little town of 10,000 households could field a pretty good army for the $380,000,000 that will be spent on behalf of our town this year.

adventured 13y ago

I agree. The so called sharing economy is the market attempting to route around a hyper regulated and incumbent protected economy. Just take a look at the industries listed: Automobiles (hyper regulated). Car dealerships (hyper regulated). Telecom (hyper regulated). Car rentals (incumbent protected; try competing with Enterprise and setting up shop in 400 airports). Taxis (hyper regulated and incumbent protected). Textbooks (protected cartel; shielded both by the establishment and politics of education). Lending and fundraising (nothing is more regulated than finance and banking). Restaurants (in every major city you'll have to bribe government officials to stay open or to set-up). Major event and city parking (try not to get whacked by the mafia while you're setting up competition, and then pray you can bribe your way into approvals to get started while the incumbents try to keep you out with denied permits). Condos / apartments / etc. (that's an easy one, it's a nightmare being a landlord in places like NYC due to the burden of government regulations and committees that can dictate every nuance for housing).

johnrob 13y ago

Lyft and Sidecar do a good job of vetting drivers. This helps prevent passengers from dying while using the service. The high quality of vetting is shielding you from seeing the real issue: what if they didn't vet drivers? Wouldn't that be a public hazard? A few examples of good behavior does not disprove the need for laws that prevent bad behavior.

temphn 13y ago
If they didn't vet, people wouldn't use the service. And the government demonstrably does not do a better job of vetting than private individuals. Some examples: has lower quality employees, it makes it impossible to "discriminate" on many different dimensions, and it certainly does not have a Canada-styled skilled immigration policy.