4 ms·

This is an interesting observation and, generally speaking, I agree with it. But there is something else at issue as well: democratic legitimacy. By any normal

This is an interesting observation and, generally speaking, I agree with it. But there is something else at issue as well: democratic legitimacy. By any normal definition of the term, ordinances imposed by the City of Charleston are imposed by a democratically elected government. Moreover, it is a municipal government which, at least in theory, is the most democratically responsive unit of government there is. If Uber were operating in an oppressive dictatorship, I would be a lot more sympathetic to Uber's plight. But at least in theory, the laws they are ignoring in Charleston are laws enacted by representatives of the people of Charleston! I suspect that Uber's supporters here will argue that this is really only a fiction and that the residents of Charleston agree with Uber, and not their own government. This is possible -- though I doubt anyone here actually knows if this is true, and it ignores the fact that, in a representative democracy, representatives are not expected to do only what their constituents want. In any case, it's interesting to think about how commenters' attitudes about Uber relate to their views about democratic government.

zo1 12y ago
"are laws enacted by representatives of the people of Charleston!" Obviously not all of the people of Charleston, but that's a big discussion on mob-rule. And you completely disregard the disconnect between "people of Charleston" and their representatives. Two separate and distinct groups. And the connection between them does not necessarily imply that the actions of the representatives is representative of the will of the people of Charleston. "it ignores the fact that, in a representative democracy, representatives are not expected to do only what their constituents want." Ah yes, I just got to this part and you did mention it. Bravo, you've successfully dismantled Democracy without meaning to. Now if you could just take the next moral and logical leap, I've got some good literature regarding this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
67726e 12y ago
> in Charleston are laws enacted by representatives of the people of Charleston! Because, as you know, there is not a single bit of interference from money in politics or bullshit party politics, or cronyism. No sir! We'll have none of that in good 'ol Chucktown.

zo1 12y ago

"are laws enacted by representatives of the people of Charleston!" Obviously not all of the people of Charleston, but that's a big discussion on mob-rule. And you completely disregard the disconnect between "people of Charleston" and their representatives. Two separate and distinct groups. And the connection between them does not necessarily imply that the actions of the representatives is representative of the will of the people of Charleston. "it ignores the fact that, in a representative democracy, representatives are not expected to do only what their constituents want." Ah yes, I just got to this part and you did mention it. Bravo, you've successfully dismantled Democracy without meaning to. Now if you could just take the next moral and logical leap, I've got some good literature regarding this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

67726e 12y ago

> in Charleston are laws enacted by representatives of the people of Charleston! Because, as you know, there is not a single bit of interference from money in politics or bullshit party politics, or cronyism. No sir! We'll have none of that in good 'ol Chucktown.