3 ms·

> the usual methods of setting public policy But what are the usual methods of setting public policy? It's only very rarely running for political office and ma

> the usual methods of setting public policy But what are the usual methods of setting public policy? It's only very rarely running for political office and making carefully thought out arguments and finally winning a vote. Civil disobedience and activism have a long and proud tradition of pushing the rules, bending them and sometimes breaking them. Famously, Rosa Parks was a private individual who sought to be allowed to set public policy, rather away from the "the usual methods". Obviously, Uber isn't even in the same league as the civil rights battle, but your expectations of what the "usual methods" are is wrong. Also, on the other hand, taxis are already conveniences for the relatively well off and trying to tie in the regulations of the taxi industry with high-brow "public policy" like clean air policies or even "regular" public transport etc. is equally not in the same league.

k-mcgrady 12y ago
>> "Civil disobedience and activism have a long and proud tradition of pushing the rules, bending them and sometimes breaking them. Famously, Rosa Parks was a private individual who sought to be allowed to set public policy, rather away from the "the usual methods". Obviously, Uber isn't even in the same league as the civil rights battle, but your expectations of what the "usual methods" are is wrong." Come on. Even with your line attempting to clarify your first statement it's one of the most idiotic things I've seen today. Uber is a private company. They aren't activists. They aren't citizens of the country trying to get a fair shake. And they certainly aren't anything like Rosa Parks. They don't like the rules that are in place. The people of Germany should be the ones that get to decide whether or not the rules should be changed, not Uber.
- mseebach 12y ago
  Well, I'm glad I could help you vent some righteous indignation by holding me responsible for an interpretation of a statement that I explicitly explained wasn't what I was trying to say. You don't get to decide who are activists based on whether you agree with them. Activism literally just means "doing something". And the drivers and passengers that use Uber/want to use Uber are very much citizens trying to get a fair shake. The people of Germany will be the one deciding, but - and here comes the actual point: such decisions are never made in a vacuum. Rules and regulations are made in response to circumstances in the real world changing, not the other way around. The emergence of Uber (and Lyft and plenty more) is the real world changing.
  - pgeorgi 12y ago
    So they're activists. For what cause? Simple: for maximizing their own profit. They have no interest in making it easy for Lyft (as they have repeatedly shown), or for licensed taxi drivers that are required by their license to cover the whole county, or for the people living in somewhat remote (but affordable) areas that won't benefit because no Uber driver wants to drive there without a surging incentive. As soon as they can, they'll use their war chest to lobby harder than German taxi companies could ever do. And they won't do it for the general public's benefit and they won't do it "for the taxi drivers". Lobbying is not a déformation professionnelle of taxi company bosses, but of people with money. In this case this means: Uber, not the taxis. We don't need to import every flawed idea from overseas, and establishing a new monopoly where there's now a certain amount of (regulated) competition certainly belongs in that category.

k-mcgrady 12y ago

>> "Civil disobedience and activism have a long and proud tradition of pushing the rules, bending them and sometimes breaking them. Famously, Rosa Parks was a private individual who sought to be allowed to set public policy, rather away from the "the usual methods". Obviously, Uber isn't even in the same league as the civil rights battle, but your expectations of what the "usual methods" are is wrong." Come on. Even with your line attempting to clarify your first statement it's one of the most idiotic things I've seen today. Uber is a private company. They aren't activists. They aren't citizens of the country trying to get a fair shake. And they certainly aren't anything like Rosa Parks. They don't like the rules that are in place. The people of Germany should be the ones that get to decide whether or not the rules should be changed, not Uber.

mseebach 12y ago
Well, I'm glad I could help you vent some righteous indignation by holding me responsible for an interpretation of a statement that I explicitly explained wasn't what I was trying to say. You don't get to decide who are activists based on whether you agree with them. Activism literally just means "doing something". And the drivers and passengers that use Uber/want to use Uber are very much citizens trying to get a fair shake. The people of Germany will be the one deciding, but - and here comes the actual point: such decisions are never made in a vacuum. Rules and regulations are made in response to circumstances in the real world changing, not the other way around. The emergence of Uber (and Lyft and plenty more) is the real world changing.
- pgeorgi 12y ago
  So they're activists. For what cause? Simple: for maximizing their own profit. They have no interest in making it easy for Lyft (as they have repeatedly shown), or for licensed taxi drivers that are required by their license to cover the whole county, or for the people living in somewhat remote (but affordable) areas that won't benefit because no Uber driver wants to drive there without a surging incentive. As soon as they can, they'll use their war chest to lobby harder than German taxi companies could ever do. And they won't do it for the general public's benefit and they won't do it "for the taxi drivers". Lobbying is not a déformation professionnelle of taxi company bosses, but of people with money. In this case this means: Uber, not the taxis. We don't need to import every flawed idea from overseas, and establishing a new monopoly where there's now a certain amount of (regulated) competition certainly belongs in that category.