4 ms·

PG is off the mark here. Companies like Uber explicitly ignore the existing laws and regulations. In the case of Tesla, the ruling just passed.

by sheetjs 13y ago

dmix 13y ago
The laws are equally quaint. Despite their precedence.
- objclxt 13y ago
  They're not equally quaint. There is a big difference between laws that regulate taxis and laws requiring cars to be sold only be third-party dealers. Taxi laws in many cities exist to both protect consumers (with criminal background checks and additional vehicle requirements), ensure parts of the city get served equally (requiring taxis to accept fares), and establish clear chains of liability. I don't believe there are anywhere near comparable safety arguments you can make for only allowing third-party dealerships. Here's my two cents (you don't have to buy into it) - taxicab laws and regulations are frequently imperfect, and there is certainly an element of protectionism and cronyism. On the other hand, I don't want to live in a place without them. There is a reason that when I previous lived in London you'd often see "Don't take unlicensed cabs at night" adverts up at bus shelters. These laws are imperfect, but also necessary. Edit: As someone has pointed out, dealerships make a similar safety argument. That said, I would imagine most rational people are able to see the difference between the two. It is still possible to regulate the sale of cars and allow manufacturers to sell directly. Similarly, I think it's possibly to have taxi laws that allow Uber to operate freely but also ensure the safety of those using the service. Regulated taxi systems are worthwhile - if you don't think they are, try living somewhere with significant crime. Last year I ended up getting posted to Medellin, Colombia for a month - a city with one of the highest murder and violent crime rates in the world. However, it is also a city with a highly regulated taxi system, with criminal background checks and vehicle restrictions. I would happily get into a cab there at 1AM. I would not have considered it if there were zero regulations and restrictions on who could drive a cab, and what cars they could use.
  - nickff 13y ago
    Auto dealers make almost the same argument; that the laws which require cars to be sold through them are there to protect the public from thieves, liars, and cheats. Both taxi regulations and dealer laws are similar, in that they involve 'bootleggers and baptists' type restrictions.[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists
    - thaumasiotes 13y ago
      Well, pretty much any law with any bootlegger support at all will present a 'baptist' face to the world; very few campaigns take the stand "I like to roll the dice, so I think it's better for everyone if we criminalize this service, prices go way up, profit margins go way up, and occasionally providers go to jail. What's life without adventure?".
    - 0x0 13y ago
      But when you buy direct from Tesla, you know who you're buying from... The same manufacturer that the dealerships buy from! Not so much with unlicensed taxis.
  - baddox 13y ago
    It doesn't sound like there's any difference other than your personal approval of the two laws.
    - marshray 13y ago
      Well in one case you trust your life when you get into a car provided by a stranger and in the other case oh wait
  - aric 13y ago
    > These laws are imperfect, but also necessary. Please excuse the tangent here. I respect your ability to have an opinion on the positions you personally feel are worth backing by violence (i.e. the nature of law). However, in turn, please respect the fact that nothing is literally "necessary," especially with such conflicted notions, beyond the word's use in hyperbole. Your respect of this point will allow for more respect and tolerance of opinions that differ from your own. Even 99.9% of the planet agreeing on one issue does not necessarily make that issue necessary. It depends on the actual threat. This is especially the case when that one issue begins to directly impose violence on the 0.1% who disagree and who want to live nonviolently but differently from your own lifestyle. It's very healthy to focus on solutions that improve awareness in matters where safety is significant. By all means, warn people. By all means, give people more access to the feedback of transparent information: e.g. transmitting knowledge to people about whether or not an entity is regulated by whichever particular system/regulator. But if you advocate the prohibition of a person trying to have a consensual relationship -- such as a person to Uber's service, a person willing to take that "risk" -- then you quickly tread into unethical territory. However small of a law it is in your perspective, it may be a large form of tyranny to the perspective of the people and entities you're directly willing to undermine or criminalize.
aric 13y ago
Corruption is subjective. Graham is exactly on the mark. The distinction between a law [previously existing for a long time, just recently existing, or about to exist] is laughably trivial. It is a worthless distinction to a person's opinion of a law or system's corruption.
- sheetjs 13y ago
  You missed the point entirely: there is a profound difference between A) Starting a business explicitly profiting from "efficiencies" created by breaking existing laws (Uber) B) Starting a business that takes advantages of loopholes in the law and failing to take steps to ensure that customers follow the law (Amazon and Use Taxes) C) Starting a business profiting from certain efficiencies without violating the laws on the books at the time (Tesla)
  - nickff 13y ago
    A) Some places have laws to ban unlicensed taxis, while others do not. C) Some states have laws to ban auto-makers from making direct sales to consumers, while others do not. You have attempted to make a distinction, but not a principled distinction. There is no reason (that I have seen) which explains why unlicensed car dealers are less harmful to the public than unlicensed taxi drivers.
  - aric 13y ago
    No. You missed the point entirely. There is no profound difference. No one is stating that the laws are perfectly paralleled. Nothing of this nature is perfectly paralleled. You're failing to appreciate that law is entirely arbitrary and worthless compared to an individual's opinion of the level of corruption surrounding that law. Your points A, B, C are meaningless to a person's opinion of the underlying validity and righteousness of those points.
    - marshray 13y ago
      Reads to me like that person's opinion of the law is that systemic inconsistencies have "profound" implications (on the underlying validity etc.)
pjg 13y ago
Can you tell me why you think PG is off the mark ? Tesla is a company marketing a product that people want. If people want Tesla their elected representatives should not and cannot stop them from exercising their choice. Passing laws to prohibit people from buying something available in the market is an index of corporate interests using money to buy favors from elected representatives i.e. an index of corruption. Do you have any claim to support your argument other than a blanket statement "PG is off the mark here" ?
- batoure 13y ago
  The poster is speaking to pg being off the mark about uber because uber has been ignoring and flouting existing laws. Where as Tesla is victim of a new interpretation of the law.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- bsder 13y ago
  Because the rules for cab companies actually serve a purpose--they actually ensure that there is some minimum level of service that the consumer can count on in terms of service, fares, non-discrimination, insurance liability, etc. If services like Uber and Lyft simply decided to be a cab company with excellent technological underpinnings, people would have been quite happy with them and they would have been quite profitable. And they could have blown most cab companies out of the water. Buying up inefficient operators, consolidating them, and bringing them into the modern world of technology is a really good business plan. Uber and Lyft are in trouble because they wanted to be exit strategy profitable rather than simply profitable. And they decided to do this by ignoring all of that icky stuff like liability insurance, commercial licensing, and following the law. In addition, Uber and Lyft tend to want to ply their trade in areas which are already profitable to cab companies rather than taking over areas that are underserved. If they were brokering rides in areas that can't get cabs easily, they would have lots of defenders. There is a big difference between laws that actually protect consumers vs. laws that protect middlemen. The fact that pg can't see the difference is a pretty big issue.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
baddox 13y ago
The difference isn't so clear cut (or at least wasn't initially) for "ridesharing" services like Lyft, Sidecar, and Uber's Uber X (I'm not exactly sure how Uber's black car service works so I'll omit it). Presumably the regulations that these services "ignore" concern the concept of "commercial driving," which is not a clear dichotomy when you really think about it. Is it legal to split the cost of gas on a road trip with a friend? Surely so. Is it legal to split the cost of gas with a friend of a friend who does not actually know the driver? Presumably so. At what point does this become "commercial driving"? The answer, of course, is when it becomes disruptive to the agencies currently enjoying regulatory capture, namely taxi companies and drivers.
- droopyEyelids 13y ago
  This fails even as a sarcastic example of pandering. (Due to lack of creative effort) I'm sure PG had something reasonable in mind when he wrote the line, but your shoddy irrationalisms passed as reasoning are basically trojan-horseing his position.
- NickNameNick 13y ago
  If you want to find a clear and mostly reasonable definition of the boundary between commercial driving private driving, you could look to the definitions of things a commercial pilot can do, that a private pilot cannot. Not that I expect city taxi commissions to apply the same standards.
  - baddox 13y ago
    I actually don't know anything about how commercial piloting works. Can a pilot fly with a friend and split the cost of gas?
smsm42 13y ago
Presence of law does not mean absence of corruption. On the contrary, corruption usually results in passing laws that serve special interests of those that corrupt the lawmakers. So "existing laws and regulations" in this case is not the reason to dismiss the charge of corruption, they are the corruption.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
Are the laws designed solely to maximize levels of service to consumers? Are they amenable to change at all due to technological adaptation? Or have they morphed into protectionism?

PG is off the mark here. Companies like Uber explicitly ignore the existing laws and regulations. In the case of Tesla, the ruling just passed.

by sheetjs 13y ago

PG is off the mark here. Companies like Uber explicitly ignore the existing laws and regulations. In the case of Tesla, the ruling just passed.

dmix 13y ago

The laws are equally quaint. Despite their precedence.

objclxt 13y ago
They're not equally quaint. There is a big difference between laws that regulate taxis and laws requiring cars to be sold only be third-party dealers. Taxi laws in many cities exist to both protect consumers (with criminal background checks and additional vehicle requirements), ensure parts of the city get served equally (requiring taxis to accept fares), and establish clear chains of liability. I don't believe there are anywhere near comparable safety arguments you can make for only allowing third-party dealerships. Here's my two cents (you don't have to buy into it) - taxicab laws and regulations are frequently imperfect, and there is certainly an element of protectionism and cronyism. On the other hand, I don't want to live in a place without them. There is a reason that when I previous lived in London you'd often see "Don't take unlicensed cabs at night" adverts up at bus shelters. These laws are imperfect, but also necessary. Edit: As someone has pointed out, dealerships make a similar safety argument. That said, I would imagine most rational people are able to see the difference between the two. It is still possible to regulate the sale of cars and allow manufacturers to sell directly. Similarly, I think it's possibly to have taxi laws that allow Uber to operate freely but also ensure the safety of those using the service. Regulated taxi systems are worthwhile - if you don't think they are, try living somewhere with significant crime. Last year I ended up getting posted to Medellin, Colombia for a month - a city with one of the highest murder and violent crime rates in the world. However, it is also a city with a highly regulated taxi system, with criminal background checks and vehicle restrictions. I would happily get into a cab there at 1AM. I would not have considered it if there were zero regulations and restrictions on who could drive a cab, and what cars they could use.
- nickff 13y ago
  Auto dealers make almost the same argument; that the laws which require cars to be sold through them are there to protect the public from thieves, liars, and cheats. Both taxi regulations and dealer laws are similar, in that they involve 'bootleggers and baptists' type restrictions.[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    Well, pretty much any law with any bootlegger support at all will present a 'baptist' face to the world; very few campaigns take the stand "I like to roll the dice, so I think it's better for everyone if we criminalize this service, prices go way up, profit margins go way up, and occasionally providers go to jail. What's life without adventure?".
  - 0x0 13y ago
    But when you buy direct from Tesla, you know who you're buying from... The same manufacturer that the dealerships buy from! Not so much with unlicensed taxis.
- baddox 13y ago
  It doesn't sound like there's any difference other than your personal approval of the two laws.
  - marshray 13y ago
    Well in one case you trust your life when you get into a car provided by a stranger and in the other case oh wait
- aric 13y ago
  > These laws are imperfect, but also necessary. Please excuse the tangent here. I respect your ability to have an opinion on the positions you personally feel are worth backing by violence (i.e. the nature of law). However, in turn, please respect the fact that nothing is literally "necessary," especially with such conflicted notions, beyond the word's use in hyperbole. Your respect of this point will allow for more respect and tolerance of opinions that differ from your own. Even 99.9% of the planet agreeing on one issue does not necessarily make that issue necessary. It depends on the actual threat. This is especially the case when that one issue begins to directly impose violence on the 0.1% who disagree and who want to live nonviolently but differently from your own lifestyle. It's very healthy to focus on solutions that improve awareness in matters where safety is significant. By all means, warn people. By all means, give people more access to the feedback of transparent information: e.g. transmitting knowledge to people about whether or not an entity is regulated by whichever particular system/regulator. But if you advocate the prohibition of a person trying to have a consensual relationship -- such as a person to Uber's service, a person willing to take that "risk" -- then you quickly tread into unethical territory. However small of a law it is in your perspective, it may be a large form of tyranny to the perspective of the people and entities you're directly willing to undermine or criminalize.

aric 13y ago

Corruption is subjective. Graham is exactly on the mark. The distinction between a law [previously existing for a long time, just recently existing, or about to exist] is laughably trivial. It is a worthless distinction to a person's opinion of a law or system's corruption.

sheetjs 13y ago
You missed the point entirely: there is a profound difference between A) Starting a business explicitly profiting from "efficiencies" created by breaking existing laws (Uber) B) Starting a business that takes advantages of loopholes in the law and failing to take steps to ensure that customers follow the law (Amazon and Use Taxes) C) Starting a business profiting from certain efficiencies without violating the laws on the books at the time (Tesla)
- nickff 13y ago
  A) Some places have laws to ban unlicensed taxis, while others do not. C) Some states have laws to ban auto-makers from making direct sales to consumers, while others do not. You have attempted to make a distinction, but not a principled distinction. There is no reason (that I have seen) which explains why unlicensed car dealers are less harmful to the public than unlicensed taxi drivers.
- aric 13y ago
  No. You missed the point entirely. There is no profound difference. No one is stating that the laws are perfectly paralleled. Nothing of this nature is perfectly paralleled. You're failing to appreciate that law is entirely arbitrary and worthless compared to an individual's opinion of the level of corruption surrounding that law. Your points A, B, C are meaningless to a person's opinion of the underlying validity and righteousness of those points.
  - marshray 13y ago
    Reads to me like that person's opinion of the law is that systemic inconsistencies have "profound" implications (on the underlying validity etc.)

pjg 13y ago

Can you tell me why you think PG is off the mark ? Tesla is a company marketing a product that people want. If people want Tesla their elected representatives should not and cannot stop them from exercising their choice. Passing laws to prohibit people from buying something available in the market is an index of corporate interests using money to buy favors from elected representatives i.e. an index of corruption. Do you have any claim to support your argument other than a blanket statement "PG is off the mark here" ?

batoure 13y ago
The poster is speaking to pg being off the mark about uber because uber has been ignoring and flouting existing laws. Where as Tesla is victim of a new interpretation of the law.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
bsder 13y ago
Because the rules for cab companies actually serve a purpose--they actually ensure that there is some minimum level of service that the consumer can count on in terms of service, fares, non-discrimination, insurance liability, etc. If services like Uber and Lyft simply decided to be a cab company with excellent technological underpinnings, people would have been quite happy with them and they would have been quite profitable. And they could have blown most cab companies out of the water. Buying up inefficient operators, consolidating them, and bringing them into the modern world of technology is a really good business plan. Uber and Lyft are in trouble because they wanted to be exit strategy profitable rather than simply profitable. And they decided to do this by ignoring all of that icky stuff like liability insurance, commercial licensing, and following the law. In addition, Uber and Lyft tend to want to ply their trade in areas which are already profitable to cab companies rather than taking over areas that are underserved. If they were brokering rides in areas that can't get cabs easily, they would have lots of defenders. There is a big difference between laws that actually protect consumers vs. laws that protect middlemen. The fact that pg can't see the difference is a pretty big issue.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

baddox 13y ago

The difference isn't so clear cut (or at least wasn't initially) for "ridesharing" services like Lyft, Sidecar, and Uber's Uber X (I'm not exactly sure how Uber's black car service works so I'll omit it). Presumably the regulations that these services "ignore" concern the concept of "commercial driving," which is not a clear dichotomy when you really think about it. Is it legal to split the cost of gas on a road trip with a friend? Surely so. Is it legal to split the cost of gas with a friend of a friend who does not actually know the driver? Presumably so. At what point does this become "commercial driving"? The answer, of course, is when it becomes disruptive to the agencies currently enjoying regulatory capture, namely taxi companies and drivers.

droopyEyelids 13y ago
This fails even as a sarcastic example of pandering. (Due to lack of creative effort) I'm sure PG had something reasonable in mind when he wrote the line, but your shoddy irrationalisms passed as reasoning are basically trojan-horseing his position.
NickNameNick 13y ago
If you want to find a clear and mostly reasonable definition of the boundary between commercial driving private driving, you could look to the definitions of things a commercial pilot can do, that a private pilot cannot. Not that I expect city taxi commissions to apply the same standards.
- baddox 13y ago
  I actually don't know anything about how commercial piloting works. Can a pilot fly with a friend and split the cost of gas?

smsm42 13y ago

Presence of law does not mean absence of corruption. On the contrary, corruption usually results in passing laws that serve special interests of those that corrupt the lawmakers. So "existing laws and regulations" in this case is not the reason to dismiss the charge of corruption, they are the corruption.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

Are the laws designed solely to maximize levels of service to consumers? Are they amenable to change at all due to technological adaptation? Or have they morphed into protectionism?