6 ms·

The court says they are violating laws. What has this to do with a free market? Is a free market one without laws? Is anarchy free market?

by holri 12y ago

aianus 12y ago
Other than maintaining liability insurance like any other driver, I don't see the need for any of these added protections. IMO consumers do not want to pay the cost of these protections and they should be able to make their own well-informed choices instead of being forced to buy them by the state. The cynic in me thinks this is less about consumer protection and more about well-funded taxi lobbies which benefit from the regulatory capture.
- holri 12y ago
  Well, than the Germans have to vote for a more liberal government. But they did the opposite, the liberals just lost their parliament seats.
  - aianus 12y ago
    Just because the government is elected democratically doesn't mean individual laws are just or reflect the will of the constituents. There's no incentive for the government to side with the consumers on this issue since politicians profit through taxi medallions, political contributions from taxi companies, etc and it's not a big enough issue for anyone to change their votes.
    - Xylakant 12y ago
      I doubt that there's a lot of political contributions from taxi companies. The market is very different from the US - in Berlin the 7000 Taxis are mostly owned by companies having anywhere between 1 and a handful of cars. A medallion costs the administration fee and can be freely obtained, they're more or less unlimited. Certainly, the cab owners are somewhat organized and have some influence, but the degree is much lower than that. Uber alone has more lobbying power.
      - WildUtah 12y ago
        Then Uber's prospects in Berlin aren't that good anyway. Maybe that's why they're willing to be so patient and fight things out in court. In US cities, the taxi companies are collecting monopoly profits and providing bad service. Their scam is protected from competition by strict nonsense regulations by local governments. The local governments support the taxi companies for bad reasons like corruption and ignorance. Uber is better because it is subject to competition and is not a monopoly. In a city with functioning taxi competition, Uber's only advantage is its software, its brand, and its network. Local companies could easily compete very effectively against that.
      - krrrh 12y ago
        This is such a key point that so many people are missing by getting caught up in "Europeean regulation = anti-innnovation" clichés. The German laws requiring adequate insurance and inspections are mostly reasonable consumer-protection regulations, and not nearly as protectionist as the taxi regulation in many US cities. It's actually a much more open and free market than in cities where Uber has had most of its success. It's rare that one can't flag down a taxi on a busy street within a couple of minutes in Berlin, and they are almost without exception clean modern cars with courteous drivers. The MyTaxi app has already brought regular Berlin taxis up to par with Uber for the smartphone-inclined. https://de.mytaxi.com/ https://de.mytaxi.com/
    - holri 12y ago
      The broader issue here is that Europe and especially Germany has a regulated market. The voters voted for that for generations. It is not only taxi but all sorts of professions that have similar or even more restrictive laws.
      - aianus 12y ago
        For any given regulatory issue, there is a core group of self-interested voters or political donators who support the regulation, and everyone else who doesn't care much one way or the other. This results in lots of protectionist legislation and regulation even if the majority of people are neutral or mildly opposed.
        holri 12y ago
        The reigning CDU and also the in the past reigning SPD are well known for their protectionism and regulation. If voters would not like that they would have voted the FDP. This has nothing to do with corruption, but with Europe's and Germanies history back to the guilds [1] from the dark age. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild
- claudius 12y ago
  Consumers by and large want to pay for these protections (at least they want everyone else to pay for them), which is why they elected MPs to implement them. If the general public perceived it unnecessary to pay for them, they could elect appropriate politicians to remove the added protections, but it is not up to a single company to decide “nah, not worth it” and break existing laws.
  - aianus 12y ago
    Germany is not a direct democracy. Theoretically it could be that 100% of the constituents oppose these protections, but still elected MPs which support them. There are plenty of issues that are more important and more likely to influence one's vote than the price of taxis.
    - vertex-four 12y ago
      Then perhaps the price of taxis is not so important as to break the law to provider cheaper taxis.
    - lispm 12y ago
      > Germany is not a direct democracy. That's not true. Elements of direct democracy are for example available at the local level. Here in Hamburg the politics is supporting it. For example the mayor of Hamburg is openly supporting it: http://www.abendblatt.de/politik/deutschland/article129401329/Olaf-Scholz-Ich-bin-Anhaenger-von-Volksentscheiden.html http://www.abendblatt.de/politik/deutschland/article12940132... http://www.abendblatt.de/politik/deutschland/article129395652/Hamburg-ist-das-Labor-der-direkten-Demokratie.html http://www.abendblatt.de/politik/deutschland/article12939565... If people here in Hamburg/Germany would be unhappy with it, then they could vote over such a topic, if there is enough interest. We already have elements of direct democracy. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksentscheid http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksentscheid For example we voted here to buy back the energy utilities, sold a few years ago. Just recently a non-binding public voting was a done about a new possible tourist attraction. Here you can see the list of `Volksabstimmungen` we had here in Hamburg in the last years: http://www.hamburg.de/contentblob/104078/data/volksabstimmungen-uebersicht.pdf http://www.hamburg.de/contentblob/104078/data/volksabstimmun...
- Xylakant 12y ago
  Well, Uber argues the same way. They also tried to cite the german constitution and argue that the law is unjust and violates the constitution. If that's really their opinion then the right course of action would be to apply for a permission, get denied, fight in court. Then the law would be repealed. But you don't get to choose which laws apply to you, just or unjust. You can decide not to follow the law (for example in civil unrest) and then go to court and fight it, but you don't get to say "I consider that unjust, so the law does not apply to me".
  - icebraining 12y ago
    You can decide not to follow the law (for example in civil unrest) and then go to court and fight it, but you don't get to say "I consider that unjust, so the law does not apply to me". I don't understand the difference.
    - Xylakant 12y ago
      Civil unrest implies you decide not to follow the law, but in turn face the consequences - go to court, get fined, maybe imprisoned in the hope to show publicly that the laws that lead to the imprisonment are unjust, creating pressure to change the laws. It doesn't mean that you decide that the unjust laws just not apply to you and then get a free out of jail card.
      - icebraining 12y ago
        I can see the difference when the action is unseen, and you have to draw attention to it to go to court, but I don't see how it applies to a service done in public like Uber. Should they be suing themselves?
        Xylakant 12y ago
        Well, they're now getting sued. The other option would have been to apply for a permit, get denied a permit, go to court. They chose not to but rather offer their service despite it being clearly in violation of the law. I feel no pity for them.
zo1 12y ago
A free market is one that isn't affected by government laws, by definition.

The court says they are violating laws. What has this to do with a free market? Is a free market one without laws? Is anarchy free market?

by holri 12y ago

The court says they are violating laws. What has this to do with a free market? Is a free market one without laws? Is anarchy free market?

aianus 12y ago

Other than maintaining liability insurance like any other driver, I don't see the need for any of these added protections. IMO consumers do not want to pay the cost of these protections and they should be able to make their own well-informed choices instead of being forced to buy them by the state. The cynic in me thinks this is less about consumer protection and more about well-funded taxi lobbies which benefit from the regulatory capture.

holri 12y ago
Well, than the Germans have to vote for a more liberal government. But they did the opposite, the liberals just lost their parliament seats.
- aianus 12y ago
  Just because the government is elected democratically doesn't mean individual laws are just or reflect the will of the constituents. There's no incentive for the government to side with the consumers on this issue since politicians profit through taxi medallions, political contributions from taxi companies, etc and it's not a big enough issue for anyone to change their votes.
  - Xylakant 12y ago
    I doubt that there's a lot of political contributions from taxi companies. The market is very different from the US - in Berlin the 7000 Taxis are mostly owned by companies having anywhere between 1 and a handful of cars. A medallion costs the administration fee and can be freely obtained, they're more or less unlimited. Certainly, the cab owners are somewhat organized and have some influence, but the degree is much lower than that. Uber alone has more lobbying power.
    - WildUtah 12y ago
      Then Uber's prospects in Berlin aren't that good anyway. Maybe that's why they're willing to be so patient and fight things out in court. In US cities, the taxi companies are collecting monopoly profits and providing bad service. Their scam is protected from competition by strict nonsense regulations by local governments. The local governments support the taxi companies for bad reasons like corruption and ignorance. Uber is better because it is subject to competition and is not a monopoly. In a city with functioning taxi competition, Uber's only advantage is its software, its brand, and its network. Local companies could easily compete very effectively against that.
    - krrrh 12y ago
      This is such a key point that so many people are missing by getting caught up in "Europeean regulation = anti-innnovation" clichés. The German laws requiring adequate insurance and inspections are mostly reasonable consumer-protection regulations, and not nearly as protectionist as the taxi regulation in many US cities. It's actually a much more open and free market than in cities where Uber has had most of its success. It's rare that one can't flag down a taxi on a busy street within a couple of minutes in Berlin, and they are almost without exception clean modern cars with courteous drivers. The MyTaxi app has already brought regular Berlin taxis up to par with Uber for the smartphone-inclined. https://de.mytaxi.com/ https://de.mytaxi.com/
  - holri 12y ago
    The broader issue here is that Europe and especially Germany has a regulated market. The voters voted for that for generations. It is not only taxi but all sorts of professions that have similar or even more restrictive laws.
    - aianus 12y ago
      For any given regulatory issue, there is a core group of self-interested voters or political donators who support the regulation, and everyone else who doesn't care much one way or the other. This results in lots of protectionist legislation and regulation even if the majority of people are neutral or mildly opposed.
      - holri 12y ago
        The reigning CDU and also the in the past reigning SPD are well known for their protectionism and regulation. If voters would not like that they would have voted the FDP. This has nothing to do with corruption, but with Europe's and Germanies history back to the guilds [1] from the dark age. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild
claudius 12y ago
Consumers by and large want to pay for these protections (at least they want everyone else to pay for them), which is why they elected MPs to implement them. If the general public perceived it unnecessary to pay for them, they could elect appropriate politicians to remove the added protections, but it is not up to a single company to decide “nah, not worth it” and break existing laws.
- aianus 12y ago
  Germany is not a direct democracy. Theoretically it could be that 100% of the constituents oppose these protections, but still elected MPs which support them. There are plenty of issues that are more important and more likely to influence one's vote than the price of taxis.
  - vertex-four 12y ago
    Then perhaps the price of taxis is not so important as to break the law to provider cheaper taxis.
  - lispm 12y ago
    > Germany is not a direct democracy. That's not true. Elements of direct democracy are for example available at the local level. Here in Hamburg the politics is supporting it. For example the mayor of Hamburg is openly supporting it: http://www.abendblatt.de/politik/deutschland/article129401329/Olaf-Scholz-Ich-bin-Anhaenger-von-Volksentscheiden.html http://www.abendblatt.de/politik/deutschland/article12940132... http://www.abendblatt.de/politik/deutschland/article129395652/Hamburg-ist-das-Labor-der-direkten-Demokratie.html http://www.abendblatt.de/politik/deutschland/article12939565... If people here in Hamburg/Germany would be unhappy with it, then they could vote over such a topic, if there is enough interest. We already have elements of direct democracy. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksentscheid http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksentscheid For example we voted here to buy back the energy utilities, sold a few years ago. Just recently a non-binding public voting was a done about a new possible tourist attraction. Here you can see the list of `Volksabstimmungen` we had here in Hamburg in the last years: http://www.hamburg.de/contentblob/104078/data/volksabstimmungen-uebersicht.pdf http://www.hamburg.de/contentblob/104078/data/volksabstimmun...
Xylakant 12y ago
Well, Uber argues the same way. They also tried to cite the german constitution and argue that the law is unjust and violates the constitution. If that's really their opinion then the right course of action would be to apply for a permission, get denied, fight in court. Then the law would be repealed. But you don't get to choose which laws apply to you, just or unjust. You can decide not to follow the law (for example in civil unrest) and then go to court and fight it, but you don't get to say "I consider that unjust, so the law does not apply to me".
- icebraining 12y ago
  You can decide not to follow the law (for example in civil unrest) and then go to court and fight it, but you don't get to say "I consider that unjust, so the law does not apply to me". I don't understand the difference.
  - Xylakant 12y ago
    Civil unrest implies you decide not to follow the law, but in turn face the consequences - go to court, get fined, maybe imprisoned in the hope to show publicly that the laws that lead to the imprisonment are unjust, creating pressure to change the laws. It doesn't mean that you decide that the unjust laws just not apply to you and then get a free out of jail card.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      I can see the difference when the action is unseen, and you have to draw attention to it to go to court, but I don't see how it applies to a service done in public like Uber. Should they be suing themselves?
      - Xylakant 12y ago
        Well, they're now getting sued. The other option would have been to apply for a permit, get denied a permit, go to court. They chose not to but rather offer their service despite it being clearly in violation of the law. I feel no pity for them.

zo1 12y ago

A free market is one that isn't affected by government laws, by definition.