> Well there was, for instance, the rule brought in a few years ago in London that minicabs have to be called from a registered business, they can't just hang around soliciting for business. This was in direct response to women being picked up by unregistered drivers and raped. That's just one example of regulation that has sprung up to protect the public.
That makes no sense. I don’t see how regulation might conceivably make it more difficult for “unregistered drivers” to rape women. All you need to understand is that even if it did, the rapists would just move on to more opportune circumstances for finding victims.
Therefore, the regulation is not justified by the idea of preventing rape. It’s just not going to. I doubt you sincerely thought it would either.
>> Consider that free(er) competition results in quality increasing and prices decreasing.
> It can result in a race to the bottom just as easily.
Free competition certainly does cause a race to the bottom of economically viable prices. I’m not sure what you’re getting at there, but “can” is just not enough when the way competition works is clear to anyone with half a brain.
> Pleasing customers is not the be-all and end-all of ... anything really.
Um.. I guess not? So what?
> I like to use the example of hygiene ratings and checks in restaurants. This is a government function that makes sure people don't die.
Alright, that’s it. I’m withdrawing your benefit of the doubt. Do you want me to believe you have no idea how people make successful sales on eBay, for example?
> I gave an example above of a regulation that came in for a reason.
There’s always a reason. It’s just that it’s never to benefit the public, because there’s no point in ruling over people besides to benefit at their expense.
> Right, behave or we won't rent to you next time!
How about: ”adhere to this contract, or we’ll sue you”?
> This is the very kernel of the problem - the negative externalities are ignored.
There’s a certain group of “people” that sure likes talking about “externalities”.. :P
> I do give a shit about consumer protection, fire regulations, safety, hygiene requirements, workers rights and many, many other things that have been hard won over many, many years. Things we're not all clamouring to discard for a slightly cheaper cab ride or bed to sleep in.
Oh you managed to sneak in some shaming too! Well done!
>> That makes no sense. I don’t see how regulation might conceivably make it more difficult for “unregistered drivers” to rape women.
Easy - minicabs are not allowed to hang around outside clubs and pubs looking for business. Therefore drunk women are less likely to just stumble into any old car outside the venue, because they know the legal operators are a call (or app-click or whatever) away. They call a cab service, the call is on record, the company is licensed, the car that picked her up is recorded, the driver is a known individual.
>> All you need to understand is that even if it did, the rapists would just move on to more opportune circumstances for finding victims.
Maybe so, maybe not, it certainly takes away one comparatively easy avenue of attack.
>> Therefore, the regulation is not justified by the idea of preventing rape. It’s just not going to. I doubt you sincerely thought it would either.
Actually people think that in general it has helped. I'm not sure how possible it is to say definitely that is has or it hasn't helped the overall number of rapes, there's certainly no solid ground for you to say "Therefore the regulation is not justified".
>> Alright, that’s it. I’m withdrawing your benefit of the doubt. Do you want me to believe you have no idea how people make successful sales on eBay, for example?
I withdrew yours some time ago, you're clearly driven by ideology rather than reality. Yes, I know about ebay and rating services. No, I don't agree they're fit for purpose in all instances, sorry.
>> There’s always a reason. It’s just that it’s never to benefit the public, because there’s no point in ruling over people besides to benefit at their expense.
More ideologically driven nonsense. It's very often to benefit the public.
>> How about: ”adhere to this contract, or we’ll sue you”?
Again, the action has already happened, already made other lives worse. And that still doesn't address the change in usage pattern and how that impacts the other residents.
>> There’s a certain group of “people” that sure likes talking about “externalities”.. :P
I don't even know what you mean by this.
>> Oh you managed to sneak in some shaming too! Well done!
No, there was no shaming implied there, simply stating that very often rules and regs have grown in these areas for good reasons that protect people and listing a few areas in which I consider them both useful and important.
--edit-- Please note I'm not saying Uber fall foul of that particular taxi regulation, it was just an example of a regulation that was put in place to protect the public even if you think it was misguided. Uber's model of using an app to request a car certainly seems to fall within the law there.
> minicabs are not allowed to hang around outside clubs and pubs looking for business. Therefore drunk women are less likely to just stumble into any old car outside the venue
If you're going to rape someone, do you want to wait for victims in front of security cameras, in a car with a license plate number on it? .. With plenty of people around?
That makes no sense. I don’t see how regulation might conceivably make it more difficult for “unregistered drivers” to rape women. All you need to understand is that even if it did, the rapists would just move on to more opportune circumstances for finding victims.
Therefore, the regulation is not justified by the idea of preventing rape. It’s just not going to. I doubt you sincerely thought it would either.
>> Consider that free(er) competition results in quality increasing and prices decreasing.
> It can result in a race to the bottom just as easily.
Free competition certainly does cause a race to the bottom of economically viable prices. I’m not sure what you’re getting at there, but “can” is just not enough when the way competition works is clear to anyone with half a brain.
> Pleasing customers is not the be-all and end-all of ... anything really.
Um.. I guess not? So what?
> I like to use the example of hygiene ratings and checks in restaurants. This is a government function that makes sure people don't die.
Alright, that’s it. I’m withdrawing your benefit of the doubt. Do you want me to believe you have no idea how people make successful sales on eBay, for example?
> I gave an example above of a regulation that came in for a reason.
There’s always a reason. It’s just that it’s never to benefit the public, because there’s no point in ruling over people besides to benefit at their expense.
> Right, behave or we won't rent to you next time!
How about: ”adhere to this contract, or we’ll sue you”?
> This is the very kernel of the problem - the negative externalities are ignored.
There’s a certain group of “people” that sure likes talking about “externalities”.. :P
> I do give a shit about consumer protection, fire regulations, safety, hygiene requirements, workers rights and many, many other things that have been hard won over many, many years. Things we're not all clamouring to discard for a slightly cheaper cab ride or bed to sleep in.
Oh you managed to sneak in some shaming too! Well done!