5 ms·

It works anywhere. Stupid state monopoly mafia trying to control how people are supposed to make money is scared. That's all there is to it. If I want to drive

It works anywhere. Stupid state monopoly mafia trying to control how people are supposed to make money is scared. That's all there is to it. If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence.

efbbbf 12y ago
>If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence. What about the client's rights?
- briandear 12y ago
  I am not arguing this point on licenses or no licenses, however I would say that assuming the client has provided an informed consent, then the client should be allowed to use whatever car service they want. If I hitchhike, I assume the risk with no expectation of protection. Consumers should have a right to use whatever they want -- provided they are aware of what they are consuming. However the odd thing about Uber in Korea is that taxis are already relatively cheap. It isn't quite the overpriced racket it seems to be in other places. Also I find it odd that suddenly Korea is concerned about safety especially given the overall lack of safety consciousness at the government level (for example overloaded ferries sinking due to government officials looking the other way in regards to permitting and safety inspections.) I lived in Korea for a total of 4 years and, it comes down to this: nationalism and protectionism. This isn't about safety at all -- this is about someone getting (or not getting) paid. The mad cow hysteria a few years ago is a great example -- North American producers were effectively shut out of the market over unsubstantiated government claims of a mad cow risk.. Thus effectively subsidizing a far less efficient domestic market. During the time of their 'concern' over mad cow, not a single American or Candian was harmed by the so-called tainted beef. Yet safety was the propaganda with which they effectively killed beef imports. The Uber situation is no different. The Chaebols own Korea -- to an even far greater scale than large corporations 'own' the US. Korea is almost entirely run by three (perhaps 4) corporations. Everything from media, communications, heavy industry real estate, autos, food production.. All owned by Samsung, LG, Daewoo (and Lotte.) Wrong or right isn't my point, my point is that Uber isn't playing with (or paying) the right people, thus this action by the government. There's a reason the largest Korean banknote was no bigger than 10,000 won ($10) (though now they apparently have a $50 note) -- it was a result of a feeble attempt to reduce large cash payments under the table. Here's a badly written article discussing that idea: http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_newsidx=151571 http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_newsidx=15...
  - prostoalex 12y ago
    > assuming the client has provided an informed consent How would the client be informed on issues such as * proper vehicle maintenance records * prior criminal record * history of accidents and insurance claims * presence of proper insurance to cover client's medical costs or property loss costs in case of an accident This is something that is required of properly licensed transportation companies (i.e. anybody working under Uber Black). Until the client has a quick and convenient way to research that information, we can only pretend the consent is informed.
    - PKop 12y ago
      If you ran a taxi service, in a competitive market, would you offer this information to your customers? You know they would want to know about it. So you would, correct? Probably because you would then earn their business over your competitors, right? If your answer is no, then why not? What if your competitors did, would you then?
- DanielBMarkham 12y ago
  Are they being abridged in any way? If I offer you a ride to the airport for ten bucks,should the state prosecute me criminally? Or is that true only if I use the I Internet to do it? What if I post in an online forum? The state can certainly require me to purchase insurance to own a vehicle. Clearly in the public's interest. Perhaps that insurance should cover riders. Great discussion. But this is simply crony capitalism. There may be risk, but there is no crime here. At all.
  - twoodfin 12y ago
    I wonder how HN'ers would feel if the U.S. government decided to respond to a "cybersecurity crisis" by requiring licensure and fulfillment of a host of legal requirements (such as posting a bond or insurance) before anyone can program or administer any public-facing computer. After all, they'd just be looking out for the public interest. Surely no one wants laissez faire software development! That's not to say there is no "public interest", but rather that the public interest is something that has to be balanced against other interests, and the freedom to ply a trade is a pretty important one.
  - king_jester 12y ago
    > But this is simply crony capitalism. There may be risk, but there is no crime here. At all. That is where you are quite wrong. The regulations of taxis goes way back to carriage regulations in the 19th century. The reason for this is clear: to ensure that the vehicle is maintained, the driver doesn't have a history of attacking or abducting passengers, and that pricing is transparent and passengers aren't gouged. Taxis are not private transportation, period. They are a form of public transportation and function more like a transit utility. To not offer basic regulation of taxis is to leave the public at large in significant danger of being ripped off, maimed, and/or assaulted.
    - DanielBMarkham 12y ago
      You are quite right about the reason for carriage laws. They're right out of two centuries ago, where a person who got into a conveyance had no idea what they might be getting into. Those days are long gone, however. Today I can buy a used car on Ebay, committing thousands of dollars to a sale for a product I've never seen and a seller I'll never meet, all without worrying about the transaction. Why? Because information flows much more freely. The commercial transaction that used to take a government guarantee now just requires an open exchange of information about past history -- which is trivial to accomplish. The 1800s are long gone. Time to move on.
valarauca1 12y ago
>If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence. No but you should be properly insured and bonded to prevent client liability. You can argue Laissez-faire, but we tried that in the 1860-1890's and it really sucked. We collectively decided individual safety is worth more then a fatter wallet. Your argument works from an Objectivist stand point, but Objectivism doesn't work in the real world.
- humanrebar 12y ago
  Nothing about laissez-faire precludes insurance and bonding. If anything the very non-laissez-faire phenomenon of bankruptcy is what makes an insurance mandate necessary. Not that I'm against bankruptcy laws in general. I'm just pointing out that personal liability is hardly unregulated.
  - valarauca1 12y ago
    Arguing that personal liability laws already exist and can enforce this system is technically true. But you first have to concede that a cash settlement is potentially worth brain damage, loss of vision, loss of limbs, loss of family members, etc. Therefore a potential liability lawsuit will result in no net economic gain, but restoring what you already had (I.E.: How much is your SO's life actually worth to you?). If you don't concede this fact, then every single instance of the situation correcting itself, I.E.: Crash and law suit, will result in a net loss to the community GDP and private loss of money. The service can have no economic value what so ever to the seller, or purchaser on a macro scale, its just becomes Russian Roulette as a service. The issue with Randian Objectivism is it normalizes human death to solve micro economic problems.
    - humanrebar 12y ago
      No, everyone and every system puts a price on human life. The only question is who decides what cost is worth it. We could basically eliminate car accidents tomorrow through extreme measures. We could lower speed limits to walking speeds, cover all vehicles in cushions, and require everyone to hire the services of a (licensed and bonded) crossing guard before crossing the street. If it saves one life or debilitating injury, isn't it worth it? Obviously not. So at the end of the day, someone is balancing things like time, money, and effort with safety. The only question is who should decide what a reasonable cost is. I would argue that, given the right tools, you are better at protecting your family than whoever runs the taxi commission, DMV, or even the city council. Reasonable people can disagree on what a reasonable cost is. They can disagree on who makes the decision and how. But it's not reasonable to jump into polemics about who has a morally superior worldview. Disclaimer: I'm not a Randian, so I don't care to defend Randian mistakes, but I disagree with your logic on this point.
matthewmacleod 12y ago
Stop this Randian nonsense. There are perfectly valid reasons to regulate taxi services - such as ensuring that passengers are safe, or that they aren't ripped off. Those requirements are beneficial as a whole. It's perfectly valid to question whether or not the current regime in various places has been effective at achieving these goals. It's also fine to change the way it all works. But dismissing it out of hand like this is purposefully, dangerously ignorant.
- fennecfoxen 12y ago
  On the other hand, a blind devotion to the regulations in question without reference to passengers' overall well-being and ability to afford a ride is equally nonsense, and a common feature of the current regime's defense of itself. (For instance, when all the London taxi drivers were complaining about Uber using boring reasons about taximeters).
  - justincormack 12y ago
    But London already has deregulated taxis (minicabs) that Uber could perfectly well follow the regulations for (ie quote price upfront).
  - matthewmacleod 12y ago
    Agreed that there's a much wider issue to examine, because taxi services could really use an overhaul. Though I don't agree that the London case is particularly boring. The London taxi racket argued that Uber was violating the rules on minicab services not having taximeters (and that's a legitimately arguable point). That's how this sort of thing gets resolved; either we decide "yes, that rule is outdated, let's change it" or "no, we've got that rule for a reason which is still valid, Uber needs to change."
    - DanBC 12y ago
      "The London Taxi racket"[1] were not just arguing about meters. They were also arguing about wheelchair and guide-dog accessibility. [1] is language like that useful?
FollowSteph3 12y ago
I shouldn't need a license to drive either, or to do anything I want should I? There's a reason licenses exist.
- dchest 12y ago
  I shouldn't need a license to drive either, or to do anything I want should I? Correct.
  - hobs 12y ago
    You have to have more to say than no one should be licensed for anything, that is a ridiculous proposition. No licensed electricians? Sorry your house is on fire!
    - brokenmusic 12y ago
      Exactly, my house, not yours. That's why I'm responsible for choosing a reputable electrician, not you.
      - noelwelsh 12y ago
        It's a good thing you know everything and your actions never have consequences on others. Fire never spreads, the free market will solve all problems, and the earth is flat.
      - valarauca1 12y ago
        Yes but if your house causes a black out to our city, or a fire that destroys a city block who's held responsible? You, the electrician? What if people die? The problem with Randian Objectivism is it normalizes human death to solve micro economical problems. I'd rather have micro economical problems then human death.
    - happyscrappy 12y ago
      It could work this way. Wiring not done by a licensed electrician then you pay triple for insurance. No insurance no mortgage. Now you can have your house burn down and it is a total loss. Hell NH drivers don't need insurance. Live free or die. Edit: Actually I just remembered you can wire your own house in NH, but it still has to be inspected. They are not totally crazy.
orbifold 12y ago
So you prefer a multinational corporation over local small / medium companies? That does really make no sense, this is not same as non licensed drivers operating in third world countries, who at least keep most their profits for themselves.
bane 12y ago
The FARC funded a big portion of their operations off of unregulated/poorly regulated taxi service. It's a lot easier to kidnap somebody when they willfully get in the car you intend to kidnap them in.

efbbbf 12y ago

>If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence. What about the client's rights?

briandear 12y ago
I am not arguing this point on licenses or no licenses, however I would say that assuming the client has provided an informed consent, then the client should be allowed to use whatever car service they want. If I hitchhike, I assume the risk with no expectation of protection. Consumers should have a right to use whatever they want -- provided they are aware of what they are consuming. However the odd thing about Uber in Korea is that taxis are already relatively cheap. It isn't quite the overpriced racket it seems to be in other places. Also I find it odd that suddenly Korea is concerned about safety especially given the overall lack of safety consciousness at the government level (for example overloaded ferries sinking due to government officials looking the other way in regards to permitting and safety inspections.) I lived in Korea for a total of 4 years and, it comes down to this: nationalism and protectionism. This isn't about safety at all -- this is about someone getting (or not getting) paid. The mad cow hysteria a few years ago is a great example -- North American producers were effectively shut out of the market over unsubstantiated government claims of a mad cow risk.. Thus effectively subsidizing a far less efficient domestic market. During the time of their 'concern' over mad cow, not a single American or Candian was harmed by the so-called tainted beef. Yet safety was the propaganda with which they effectively killed beef imports. The Uber situation is no different. The Chaebols own Korea -- to an even far greater scale than large corporations 'own' the US. Korea is almost entirely run by three (perhaps 4) corporations. Everything from media, communications, heavy industry real estate, autos, food production.. All owned by Samsung, LG, Daewoo (and Lotte.) Wrong or right isn't my point, my point is that Uber isn't playing with (or paying) the right people, thus this action by the government. There's a reason the largest Korean banknote was no bigger than 10,000 won ($10) (though now they apparently have a $50 note) -- it was a result of a feeble attempt to reduce large cash payments under the table. Here's a badly written article discussing that idea: http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_newsidx=151571 http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_newsidx=15...
- prostoalex 12y ago
  > assuming the client has provided an informed consent How would the client be informed on issues such as * proper vehicle maintenance records * prior criminal record * history of accidents and insurance claims * presence of proper insurance to cover client's medical costs or property loss costs in case of an accident This is something that is required of properly licensed transportation companies (i.e. anybody working under Uber Black). Until the client has a quick and convenient way to research that information, we can only pretend the consent is informed.
  - PKop 12y ago
    If you ran a taxi service, in a competitive market, would you offer this information to your customers? You know they would want to know about it. So you would, correct? Probably because you would then earn their business over your competitors, right? If your answer is no, then why not? What if your competitors did, would you then?
DanielBMarkham 12y ago
Are they being abridged in any way? If I offer you a ride to the airport for ten bucks,should the state prosecute me criminally? Or is that true only if I use the I Internet to do it? What if I post in an online forum? The state can certainly require me to purchase insurance to own a vehicle. Clearly in the public's interest. Perhaps that insurance should cover riders. Great discussion. But this is simply crony capitalism. There may be risk, but there is no crime here. At all.
- twoodfin 12y ago
  I wonder how HN'ers would feel if the U.S. government decided to respond to a "cybersecurity crisis" by requiring licensure and fulfillment of a host of legal requirements (such as posting a bond or insurance) before anyone can program or administer any public-facing computer. After all, they'd just be looking out for the public interest. Surely no one wants laissez faire software development! That's not to say there is no "public interest", but rather that the public interest is something that has to be balanced against other interests, and the freedom to ply a trade is a pretty important one.
- king_jester 12y ago
  > But this is simply crony capitalism. There may be risk, but there is no crime here. At all. That is where you are quite wrong. The regulations of taxis goes way back to carriage regulations in the 19th century. The reason for this is clear: to ensure that the vehicle is maintained, the driver doesn't have a history of attacking or abducting passengers, and that pricing is transparent and passengers aren't gouged. Taxis are not private transportation, period. They are a form of public transportation and function more like a transit utility. To not offer basic regulation of taxis is to leave the public at large in significant danger of being ripped off, maimed, and/or assaulted.
  - DanielBMarkham 12y ago
    You are quite right about the reason for carriage laws. They're right out of two centuries ago, where a person who got into a conveyance had no idea what they might be getting into. Those days are long gone, however. Today I can buy a used car on Ebay, committing thousands of dollars to a sale for a product I've never seen and a seller I'll never meet, all without worrying about the transaction. Why? Because information flows much more freely. The commercial transaction that used to take a government guarantee now just requires an open exchange of information about past history -- which is trivial to accomplish. The 1800s are long gone. Time to move on.

valarauca1 12y ago

>If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence. No but you should be properly insured and bonded to prevent client liability. You can argue Laissez-faire, but we tried that in the 1860-1890's and it really sucked. We collectively decided individual safety is worth more then a fatter wallet. Your argument works from an Objectivist stand point, but Objectivism doesn't work in the real world.

humanrebar 12y ago
Nothing about laissez-faire precludes insurance and bonding. If anything the very non-laissez-faire phenomenon of bankruptcy is what makes an insurance mandate necessary. Not that I'm against bankruptcy laws in general. I'm just pointing out that personal liability is hardly unregulated.
- valarauca1 12y ago
  Arguing that personal liability laws already exist and can enforce this system is technically true. But you first have to concede that a cash settlement is potentially worth brain damage, loss of vision, loss of limbs, loss of family members, etc. Therefore a potential liability lawsuit will result in no net economic gain, but restoring what you already had (I.E.: How much is your SO's life actually worth to you?). If you don't concede this fact, then every single instance of the situation correcting itself, I.E.: Crash and law suit, will result in a net loss to the community GDP and private loss of money. The service can have no economic value what so ever to the seller, or purchaser on a macro scale, its just becomes Russian Roulette as a service. The issue with Randian Objectivism is it normalizes human death to solve micro economic problems.
  - humanrebar 12y ago
    No, everyone and every system puts a price on human life. The only question is who decides what cost is worth it. We could basically eliminate car accidents tomorrow through extreme measures. We could lower speed limits to walking speeds, cover all vehicles in cushions, and require everyone to hire the services of a (licensed and bonded) crossing guard before crossing the street. If it saves one life or debilitating injury, isn't it worth it? Obviously not. So at the end of the day, someone is balancing things like time, money, and effort with safety. The only question is who should decide what a reasonable cost is. I would argue that, given the right tools, you are better at protecting your family than whoever runs the taxi commission, DMV, or even the city council. Reasonable people can disagree on what a reasonable cost is. They can disagree on who makes the decision and how. But it's not reasonable to jump into polemics about who has a morally superior worldview. Disclaimer: I'm not a Randian, so I don't care to defend Randian mistakes, but I disagree with your logic on this point.

matthewmacleod 12y ago

Stop this Randian nonsense. There are perfectly valid reasons to regulate taxi services - such as ensuring that passengers are safe, or that they aren't ripped off. Those requirements are beneficial as a whole. It's perfectly valid to question whether or not the current regime in various places has been effective at achieving these goals. It's also fine to change the way it all works. But dismissing it out of hand like this is purposefully, dangerously ignorant.

fennecfoxen 12y ago
On the other hand, a blind devotion to the regulations in question without reference to passengers' overall well-being and ability to afford a ride is equally nonsense, and a common feature of the current regime's defense of itself. (For instance, when all the London taxi drivers were complaining about Uber using boring reasons about taximeters).
- justincormack 12y ago
  But London already has deregulated taxis (minicabs) that Uber could perfectly well follow the regulations for (ie quote price upfront).
- matthewmacleod 12y ago
  Agreed that there's a much wider issue to examine, because taxi services could really use an overhaul. Though I don't agree that the London case is particularly boring. The London taxi racket argued that Uber was violating the rules on minicab services not having taximeters (and that's a legitimately arguable point). That's how this sort of thing gets resolved; either we decide "yes, that rule is outdated, let's change it" or "no, we've got that rule for a reason which is still valid, Uber needs to change."
  - DanBC 12y ago
    "The London Taxi racket"[1] were not just arguing about meters. They were also arguing about wheelchair and guide-dog accessibility. [1] is language like that useful?

FollowSteph3 12y ago

I shouldn't need a license to drive either, or to do anything I want should I? There's a reason licenses exist.

dchest 12y ago
I shouldn't need a license to drive either, or to do anything I want should I? Correct.
- hobs 12y ago
  You have to have more to say than no one should be licensed for anything, that is a ridiculous proposition. No licensed electricians? Sorry your house is on fire!
  - brokenmusic 12y ago
    Exactly, my house, not yours. That's why I'm responsible for choosing a reputable electrician, not you.
    - noelwelsh 12y ago
      It's a good thing you know everything and your actions never have consequences on others. Fire never spreads, the free market will solve all problems, and the earth is flat.
    - valarauca1 12y ago
      Yes but if your house causes a black out to our city, or a fire that destroys a city block who's held responsible? You, the electrician? What if people die? The problem with Randian Objectivism is it normalizes human death to solve micro economical problems. I'd rather have micro economical problems then human death.
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    It could work this way. Wiring not done by a licensed electrician then you pay triple for insurance. No insurance no mortgage. Now you can have your house burn down and it is a total loss. Hell NH drivers don't need insurance. Live free or die. Edit: Actually I just remembered you can wire your own house in NH, but it still has to be inspected. They are not totally crazy.

orbifold 12y ago

So you prefer a multinational corporation over local small / medium companies? That does really make no sense, this is not same as non licensed drivers operating in third world countries, who at least keep most their profits for themselves.

bane 12y ago

The FARC funded a big portion of their operations off of unregulated/poorly regulated taxi service. It's a lot easier to kidnap somebody when they willfully get in the car you intend to kidnap them in.