You can choose not to use Uber and effectively ignore them but that does not stop them from having an influence on you, your community, and your country.
It is true that being part of a government system is not a choice but without that community you would be dead or at least not an educated human with internet access.
You cannot reap the rewards of government, community, and progress and then turn around and want to abolish the systems that made those things possible just because you cannot speed and murder people.
> You cannot reap the rewards of government, community, and progress and then turn around and want to abolish the systems that made those things possible just because you cannot speed and murder people.
What systems are those, exactly? Protectionist laws for taxi drivers?
Sure, if we stick with Uber and transportation topic. Labor laws, minimum wage, vehicle inspections, registration. systems and rules that were put in place as a response to what citizens felt were "wrongs" that needed to be addressed.
When a organization ignores those laws then they are going against the will of the people.
What is the will of the people? How is it expressed? Through representative elections? What about Arrow's impossibility theorem?
The 'will of the people' on the issue of Uber is abundantly clear. Everyone wants it, except taxi drivers and the companies and structures that benefit from them. This gets blocked sometimes due to the fact that taxi drivers represent a concentrated interest against a diffuse benefit. We all benefit a little from Uber, but taxi drivers benefit a lot from killing Uber. So they raise their voices against it, and nobody speaks up for the rest of us. It is the classic problem of representative democracy. The representatives are beholden to the concentrated interests of the few against the collective interests of the many.
I wonder how many Uber drivers and riders vote? ~160k drivers in USA (according to their twitter posts). How many users?
Where is the pro Uber Lobby? Don't have one? Start one! You are clearly in favor of this type of program. If you truly believe that it is the right thing then be part of the solution that makes it happen.
They raised their voices against it.. You have to speak up for "the rest of us". Be the change that we need in the world.
Like I said, concentrated interests, diffuse benefits. The benefits are too small to me to be worth my time to go out and organize for it. That is why this problem exists. It is the reason why hairdressers require licenses, it is the reason why teachers can't be fired, and it is the reason why we don't have a carbon tax.
If you're arguing that all those things are good and consistent with the will of the people, then sure. I suppose that's a consistent position, even if absurd in its consequences. But I don't think for a second that you believe all three of those things are good simultaneously.
When given a choice, drivers stampeded from yellow cabs to Uber. Riders stampeded from yellow cabs to Uber. It's clear which one most parties prefer. And that suggests that all those government "services" around the provision of taxi service are valued at or below 0 by most people.
You are speaking in broad terms and are making an assessment based on them. "drivers stampeded" "riders stampeded" "most parties" and you round all that off by saying that the value of the services offered were below 0.
I cannot speak to the motivation of those that chose Uber as a customer or employer. Perhaps customers chose them because of the cost and convenient app. Perhaps employees chose them because of the low barrier to entry and flexible hours.
Just because something different came along and grabbed everyone's attention does not mean that the gov services are valued at zero. There was a time when those yellow cabs had little to no rules or oversight. And that changed for a good reason - or at least a reason that people thought were good at a time.
The rules for Uber are going to change too - there will be laws and rules designed to correct wrongs (either real or perceived).
If the rules need to be different then people need to stand up and try to make the rules what they think they should be. My argument is that Uber should not decide on its own not to respect the will of the people.
It's not an argument. Getting people to "stampede" to you is trivial - just drop the prices well below market average, and the herd will quickly follow, regardless of whether or not your service is actually better. Doing that is difficult (that's the point of competition), but becomes much easier if you can blatantly break the law and get away with it.
Come on, there's no way you can say taxis are superior to a frickin button that you press to instantly get a car. Even if the prices were the same, I'm pretty sure most people would still choose Uber.
Actually I stick with taxis. It's more expensive but I don't have to hand over all my contacts and my location at all times from my cell phone for frankly no damn good business purpose except for one's the company won't reveal to me and will vaguely reference in its ToS. Deceivers. Sadly Lyft app permissions don't seem to be much better.
Reduction of congestion, especially in airports. It'd probably be a nightmare if artificial scarcity wasn't enforced at a popular spot for hired rides.
It is true that being part of a government system is not a choice but without that community you would be dead or at least not an educated human with internet access.
You cannot reap the rewards of government, community, and progress and then turn around and want to abolish the systems that made those things possible just because you cannot speed and murder people.