5 ms·

It's a quote, quotes are usually lacking some context and this doesn't appear as bad as you make it out. What if a few missing/implied words were added in that

by buro9 12y ago

It's a quote, quotes are usually lacking some context and this doesn't appear as bad as you make it out. What if a few missing/implied words were added in that related to earlier parts of the conversation? > my inclination would be to allow Lyft here a long time before Uber becomes > my inclination based on the legal interpretation of how these companies have operated would be to allow Lyft here a long time before Uber His quote remains an opinion, the only missing context is whether this opinion is based on the legal arguments in the case or a purely personal opinion or external set of information that would show a bias away from the legal arguments. He even said in the prior sentence "This is about one company thinking it's above the law". Again, implying that Lyft are following the spirit of the law as well as the letter, and Uber are following the letter and not the spirit (and thus working as many loopholes as possible to 'win' in-spite of the wishes of the people of the affected cities that they do so in accordance with the wishes of the people of those cities). I think this is not shocking at all, it's how it's supposed to be. Shocking is how some companies wish to ignore the codified will of the people of a city (or state, or country) purely to turn a dime. And yes, it's also shocking that some representatives of the people are corrupt as hell and that the written law has enough holes in it to fly a 747 through. But a representative of people's tax dollars standing up to ask for companies who operate within a city to do so in accordance with the wishes of those who pay the tax dollars is not shocking, it should be the norm

yummyfajitas 12y ago
He even said in the prior sentence "This is about one company thinking it's above the law". Again, implying that Lyft are following the spirit of the law as well as the letter, and Uber are following the letter and not the spirit (and thus working as many loopholes... By definition, the codified will of the people is the letter of the law. The "spirit of the law" is what politicians kind of want to happen, but never actually passed a law for. Also, the "will of the people" is a nonsensical concept by Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...
- desdiv 12y ago
  Arrow's impossibility theorem only applies to rank order voting systems, not democracy in general.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    At it's core, Arrow's Impossibility Theorem says that there is no ranked preference a group larger than 2 with at least 3 policy choices. I don't know what "will of the people" means if not a ranked preference. Maybe you can explain?
    - desdiv 12y ago
      Let's say I like party A 10 times more than I like party B. In a preferential voting system, there's no way to precisely express my preferences using the ticket. I'm forced to choose between "1. A" or "1. A, 2. B". Someone else who like part A 2 times more than party B will end up voting identically to me, despite the huge difference between our preferences. Any preferential voting system is necessarily flawed because how limited its input is. That's basically what Arrow's impossibility theorem says. Due to its limited inputs, a preferential voting system will necessarily fail one of the three fairness criteria. There are far better voting schemes out there, none of which are affected by Arrow's impossibility theorem.
      - yummyfajitas 12y ago
        What does it mean to like party A 10x more than party B? What I'm questioning here is the existence of cardinal preferences, which are necessary for a "will of the people" to be defined. The only way I can make sense of cardinal preferences is to treat them as dollars spent on private goods [1], but I doubt that's what the OP meant. As it applies to this situation, it's moot - Portland did not express any cardinal preferences. [1] Non-private goods introduce other incentives that prevent spending from tracking desire.
        fugigig 12y ago

by buro9 12y ago

yummyfajitas 12y ago

He even said in the prior sentence "This is about one company thinking it's above the law". Again, implying that Lyft are following the spirit of the law as well as the letter, and Uber are following the letter and not the spirit (and thus working as many loopholes... By definition, the codified will of the people is the letter of the law. The "spirit of the law" is what politicians kind of want to happen, but never actually passed a law for. Also, the "will of the people" is a nonsensical concept by Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...

desdiv 12y ago
Arrow's impossibility theorem only applies to rank order voting systems, not democracy in general.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  At it's core, Arrow's Impossibility Theorem says that there is no ranked preference a group larger than 2 with at least 3 policy choices. I don't know what "will of the people" means if not a ranked preference. Maybe you can explain?
  - desdiv 12y ago
    Let's say I like party A 10 times more than I like party B. In a preferential voting system, there's no way to precisely express my preferences using the ticket. I'm forced to choose between "1. A" or "1. A, 2. B". Someone else who like part A 2 times more than party B will end up voting identically to me, despite the huge difference between our preferences. Any preferential voting system is necessarily flawed because how limited its input is. That's basically what Arrow's impossibility theorem says. Due to its limited inputs, a preferential voting system will necessarily fail one of the three fairness criteria. There are far better voting schemes out there, none of which are affected by Arrow's impossibility theorem.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      What does it mean to like party A 10x more than party B? What I'm questioning here is the existence of cardinal preferences, which are necessary for a "will of the people" to be defined. The only way I can make sense of cardinal preferences is to treat them as dollars spent on private goods [1], but I doubt that's what the OP meant. As it applies to this situation, it's moot - Portland did not express any cardinal preferences. [1] Non-private goods introduce other incentives that prevent spending from tracking desire.
      - fugigig 12y ago