3 ms·

Sorry, what? I actually come from a country where vehicle insurance - even third-party - is completely optional. It's called New Zealand, pretty decent place to

Sorry, what? I actually come from a country where vehicle insurance - even third-party - is completely optional. It's called New Zealand, pretty decent place to live all things considered. Anyway, why can't we just let Uber drivers state the degree of insurance coverage they offer and explain how often they check their vehicles and who does the checks etc? Then let people decide who they want to ride with. No gambling required. We can even expect Uber drivers to freely offer this information themselves, because it will make their services more attractive. Remember we are talking about interactions between free individuals here. No one is forced to take an Uber ride.

jacquesm 12y ago
> I actually come from a country where vehicle insurance - even third-party is completely optional. It's called New Zealand, pretty decent place to live all things considered. Beautiful country, nice people! I assume you are familiar with the ACC and that that is why you don't need such insurance? Effectively you already have it. As for why we can't let Uber drivers state the degree of insurance etc, that's not how taxis work, and Uber competes head-on with taxis. So if you want transportation using a car from point 'a' to point 'b' then there are certain levels of expectation to be met and because people are - surprise - crafty, so in order to make sure these expectations are actually honored the government in Germany chose to license such operators. Just because 'we're free individuals here' does not give you license to ignore the law.
- jasonisalive 12y ago
  Thanks Jacques, I do understand that we are talking about laws here. I don't personally endorse Uber's business practise of breaking local laws to force the debate. I'm arguing about the rationality of these particular laws. In essence, laws which mandate a minimum standard of a given good. I think these laws should be repealed because they restrict individual liberty and do not produce more optimal outcomes than an unhindered free market for transportation services. Just my two cents.
Tomte 12y ago
How do you cope with getting injured by a driver who cannot pay for your medical treatment? I'd be very surprised if there was not some mechanism in place. Maybe taypayer money, the state paying for it and trying to get reimbursed by the driver? Something else? In Germany we handle this issue with mandatory insurance. I'm pretty sure that you're comparing apples and oranges.
biot 12y ago
To paraphrase: Why can't we just let surgeons state the degree of medical training they have and explain how often they get training and who does the training etc? Then let people decide who they want to have surgery from. No gambling required. We can even expect surgeons to freely offer this information themselves, because it will make their services more attractive. Remember we are talking about interactions between free individuals here. No one is forced after a critical, life-threatening accident to go to the nearest location such as Bob's Discount Surgery, "Where sterilization is for sissies. Check out our 50% off amputation special."

jacquesm 12y ago

> I actually come from a country where vehicle insurance - even third-party is completely optional. It's called New Zealand, pretty decent place to live all things considered. Beautiful country, nice people! I assume you are familiar with the ACC and that that is why you don't need such insurance? Effectively you already have it. As for why we can't let Uber drivers state the degree of insurance etc, that's not how taxis work, and Uber competes head-on with taxis. So if you want transportation using a car from point 'a' to point 'b' then there are certain levels of expectation to be met and because people are - surprise - crafty, so in order to make sure these expectations are actually honored the government in Germany chose to license such operators. Just because 'we're free individuals here' does not give you license to ignore the law.

jasonisalive 12y ago
Thanks Jacques, I do understand that we are talking about laws here. I don't personally endorse Uber's business practise of breaking local laws to force the debate. I'm arguing about the rationality of these particular laws. In essence, laws which mandate a minimum standard of a given good. I think these laws should be repealed because they restrict individual liberty and do not produce more optimal outcomes than an unhindered free market for transportation services. Just my two cents.

Tomte 12y ago

How do you cope with getting injured by a driver who cannot pay for your medical treatment? I'd be very surprised if there was not some mechanism in place. Maybe taypayer money, the state paying for it and trying to get reimbursed by the driver? Something else? In Germany we handle this issue with mandatory insurance. I'm pretty sure that you're comparing apples and oranges.

biot 12y ago

To paraphrase: Why can't we just let surgeons state the degree of medical training they have and explain how often they get training and who does the training etc? Then let people decide who they want to have surgery from. No gambling required. We can even expect surgeons to freely offer this information themselves, because it will make their services more attractive. Remember we are talking about interactions between free individuals here. No one is forced after a critical, life-threatening accident to go to the nearest location such as Bob's Discount Surgery, "Where sterilization is for sissies. Check out our 50% off amputation special."