Can you tell me why you think PG is off the mark ? Tesla is a company marketing a product that people want. If people want Tesla their elected representatives should not and cannot stop them from exercising their choice. Passing laws to prohibit people from buying something available in the market is an index of corporate interests using money to buy favors from elected representatives i.e. an index of corruption. Do you have any claim to support your argument other than a blanket statement "PG is off the mark here" ?
Because the rules for cab companies actually serve a purpose--they actually ensure that there is some minimum level of service that the consumer can count on in terms of service, fares, non-discrimination, insurance liability, etc.
If services like Uber and Lyft simply decided to be a cab company with excellent technological underpinnings, people would have been quite happy with them and they would have been quite profitable. And they could have blown most cab companies out of the water. Buying up inefficient operators, consolidating them, and bringing them into the modern world of technology is a really good business plan.
Uber and Lyft are in trouble because they wanted to be exit strategy profitable rather than simply profitable. And they decided to do this by ignoring all of that icky stuff like liability insurance, commercial licensing, and following the law. In addition, Uber and Lyft tend to want to ply their trade in areas which are already profitable to cab companies rather than taking over areas that are underserved. If they were brokering rides in areas that can't get cabs easily, they would have lots of defenders.
There is a big difference between laws that actually protect consumers vs. laws that protect middlemen. The fact that pg can't see the difference is a pretty big issue.
The poster is speaking to pg being off the mark about uber because uber has been ignoring and flouting existing laws. Where as Tesla is victim of a new interpretation of the law.
Graham is exactly on the mark. The distinction between a law [previously existing for a long time, just recently existing, or about to exist] is laughably trivial. It is a worthless distinction to a person's opinion of a law or system's corruption.
You missed the point entirely: there is a profound difference between
A) Starting a business explicitly profiting from "efficiencies" created by breaking existing laws (Uber)
B) Starting a business that takes advantages of loopholes in the law and failing to take steps to ensure that customers follow the law (Amazon and Use Taxes)
C) Starting a business profiting from certain efficiencies without violating the laws on the books at the time (Tesla)
A) Some places have laws to ban unlicensed taxis, while others do not.
C) Some states have laws to ban auto-makers from making direct sales to consumers, while others do not.
You have attempted to make a distinction, but not a principled distinction. There is no reason (that I have seen) which explains why unlicensed car dealers are less harmful to the public than unlicensed taxi drivers.
There is no profound difference. No one is stating that the laws are perfectly paralleled. Nothing of this nature is perfectly paralleled. You're failing to appreciate that law is entirely arbitrary and worthless compared to an individual's opinion of the level of corruption surrounding that law. Your points A, B, C are meaningless to a person's opinion of the underlying validity and righteousness of those points.
I (and the GP) believe there's a profound difference in starting a company knowing that you'll be breaking laws (Uber) and running an established company that just had a law passed that negatively impacts your business (Tesla). You're failing to address that besides saying that all law is completely arbitrary.
The distinction of precedence has (or should have) no profound difference to a person's opinion of what constitutes validity or corruption, regardless of a status quo. That is my point.
There is only "profound difference" to the circular reasoning of law itself. There was no reason for me to address that. Legal frameworks are inherently rigid and without much individual conscience.
> "PG is off the mark here. Companies like Uber explicitly ignore the existing laws and regulations. In the case of Tesla, the ruling just passed."
This indicates to me that the "profound" differences to him/her regarding "validity" is whether a law previously exists. (...Seemingly completely oblivious to the notion that much of what is made into law is insidious, vile, and of a precedence worth objecting.) If the point was only about systemic inconsistencies, that wan't clear.
They're not equally quaint. There is a big difference between laws that regulate taxis and laws requiring cars to be sold only be third-party dealers.
Taxi laws in many cities exist to both protect consumers (with criminal background checks and additional vehicle requirements), ensure parts of the city get served equally (requiring taxis to accept fares), and establish clear chains of liability. I don't believe there are anywhere near comparable safety arguments you can make for only allowing third-party dealerships.
Here's my two cents (you don't have to buy into it) - taxicab laws and regulations are frequently imperfect, and there is certainly an element of protectionism and cronyism. On the other hand, I don't want to live in a place without them. There is a reason that when I previous lived in London you'd often see "Don't take unlicensed cabs at night" adverts up at bus shelters. These laws are imperfect, but also necessary.
Edit: As someone has pointed out, dealerships make a similar safety argument. That said, I would imagine most rational people are able to see the difference between the two. It is still possible to regulate the sale of cars and allow manufacturers to sell directly. Similarly, I think it's possibly to have taxi laws that allow Uber to operate freely but also ensure the safety of those using the service.
Regulated taxi systems are worthwhile - if you don't think they are, try living somewhere with significant crime. Last year I ended up getting posted to Medellin, Colombia for a month - a city with one of the highest murder and violent crime rates in the world. However, it is also a city with a highly regulated taxi system, with criminal background checks and vehicle restrictions. I would happily get into a cab there at 1AM. I would not have considered it if there were zero regulations and restrictions on who could drive a cab, and what cars they could use.
Auto dealers make almost the same argument; that the laws which require cars to be sold through them are there to protect the public from thieves, liars, and cheats. Both taxi regulations and dealer laws are similar, in that they involve 'bootleggers and baptists' type restrictions.[1]
Well, pretty much any law with any bootlegger support at all will present a 'baptist' face to the world; very few campaigns take the stand "I like to roll the dice, so I think it's better for everyone if we criminalize this service, prices go way up, profit margins go way up, and occasionally providers go to jail. What's life without adventure?".
I respect your ability to have an opinion on the positions you personally feel are worth backing by violence (i.e. the nature of law). However, in turn, please respect the fact that nothing is literally "necessary," especially with such conflicted notions, beyond the word's use in hyperbole. Your respect of this point will allow for more respect and tolerance of opinions that differ from your own.
Even 99.9% of the planet agreeing on one issue does not necessarily make that issue necessary. It depends on the actual threat. This is especially the case when that one issue begins to directly impose violence on the 0.1% who disagree and who want to live nonviolently but differently from your own lifestyle.
It's very healthy to focus on solutions that improve awareness in matters where safety is significant. By all means, warn people. By all means, give people more access to the feedback of transparent information: e.g. transmitting knowledge to people about whether or not an entity is regulated by whichever particular system/regulator. But if you advocate the prohibition of a person trying to have a consensual relationship -- such as a person to Uber's service, a person willing to take that "risk" -- then you quickly tread into unethical territory. However small of a law it is in your perspective, it may be a large form of tyranny to the perspective of the people and entities you're directly willing to undermine or criminalize.
No, actually there's no difference - both serve special interests. The fact that you like one special interest but not the other is your personal preference, but the nature of these laws does not differ - they benefit one set of citizens at the cost of limiting consumer choice and freedom to conduct voluntary transactions. The fact that you enjoy the services of one special interest groups changes nothing.
Presence of law does not mean absence of corruption. On the contrary, corruption usually results in passing laws that serve special interests of those that corrupt the lawmakers. So "existing laws and regulations" in this case is not the reason to dismiss the charge of corruption, they are the corruption.
The difference isn't so clear cut (or at least wasn't initially) for "ridesharing" services like Lyft, Sidecar, and Uber's Uber X (I'm not exactly sure how Uber's black car service works so I'll omit it). Presumably the regulations that these services "ignore" concern the concept of "commercial driving," which is not a clear dichotomy when you really think about it. Is it legal to split the cost of gas on a road trip with a friend? Surely so. Is it legal to split the cost of gas with a friend of a friend who does not actually know the driver? Presumably so. At what point does this become "commercial driving"? The answer, of course, is when it becomes disruptive to the agencies currently enjoying regulatory capture, namely taxi companies and drivers.
If you want to find a clear and mostly reasonable definition of the boundary between commercial driving private driving,
you could look to the definitions of things a commercial pilot can do, that a private pilot cannot.
Not that I expect city taxi commissions to apply the same standards.
This fails even as a sarcastic example of pandering. (Due to lack of creative effort)
I'm sure PG had something reasonable in mind when he wrote the line, but your shoddy irrationalisms passed as reasoning are basically trojan-horseing his position.
Are the laws designed solely to maximize levels of service to consumers? Are they amenable to change at all due to technological adaptation? Or have they morphed into protectionism?
Didn't see him complaining when the government was subsidizing Tesla's R&D with cheap loans and tax incentives [1]. The government giveth and the government taketh away. Not saying I agree with this decision by NJ, but its somewhat disingenuous to take a moralistic argument (corruption) at face value from a party that possibly stands to benefit financially from the alternative decision. (Yes I'm assuming that pg is a Tesla stockholder).
Help me understand. Are you arguing that PG (or anyone) cannot take the position that the federal government subsidizing the EV sector is good, while simultaneously taking the position that a state government caving to incumbent political pressure to pass an anti-consumer ruling is bad?
Are those two beliefs internally inconsistent in some way? Are you basically arguing that you can either believe in no government involvement, or accept government's involvement on the condition that one must abrogate the moral right to complain about its anti-consumer behavior; that there is no other consistent position to take?
Maybe I'm not understanding what exactly you are saying.
The second portion of your argument appears to be an ad hominem claim that we should disclaim PG's statements because of the possibility that he may own Tesla equity. Do you have an actual claim beyond that?
The OP asserting that the pg statement in question was "an astute observation" implies that pg is an impartial observer who is in no way biased by his ties to the startup ecosystem. I disagree with that assertion.
The pg quote that OP provides is very brief -- State/city govt ruling against Tesla/Uber == corruption -- and more an opinion than a true argument because no evidence/elaboration is provided. That Tesla's (very different) situation is equated with Uber's further points to a hastily voiced opinion rather than a reasoned argument. Hence, I would argue that an ad hominem approach is appropriate because there is not much else to go on. Pg voiced an opinion and I made a statement that mentioned some biases that he was likely to have that informed said opinion.
Yes, it is known that Tesla is only profitable because of government incentives. But such laws don't do much to correct it - if anything, they make the matter worse by making Tesla more dependent on government whim.
Or, alternately, Uber ignores local taxi regulations and then is surprised when cities fight back. I haven't been following the Tesla issue closely, but their attitude does not seem similar to Uber's, which, personally, makes all the difference.
The cynic says the more things you regulate, the more industries that can donate money to your political campaign and hire you when you retire.
Some regulation serves a purpose. All regulation can be justified with some sort of logic. That doesn't mean it is either necessary or a net benefit to society.
Proponents claim that cities need to regulate Uber to ensure passenger safety. Meanwhile an NYPost investigation found of the 16 fatalities caused by cab drivers since 2009, all but 2 kept driving cabs. ( http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/cabbies-who-kill-or-maim-in-nyc... ) May be its different in other cities. I haven't been kidnapped by a cab driver in NYC, yet at least.
The Tesla dealership issue is more erroneous and transparent to me than Uber. Car dealerships are a public nuisance. No one would argue we need more middle men for electronics, clothes, or food. Why for cars? The current structure makes it easy for dealers to get away with dishonest business practices. Mechanics are paid to do repairs as fast as possible, increasing the chance of future failures. Car companies are vulnerable to large class action lawsuits while a single dealership is hardly worth an expert lawyer's time.
Heavily regulated environments repel innovation. Regulations, both in Uber's case and Tesla's are written by the incumbents for the incumbents. Follow the letter of the law and instead of a sleek new structure you produce a disfigured chimera, which probably will piss money.
Perhaps one of the best things the internet provided us was a regulation minimal environment. You could put up a website and try new things with out having to worry about getting shaken down. I hope the future web won't be full of rampant EU-mandated privacy notices and DMCA federal government web site registries.
Uber and Tesla don't have a choice. If they want to provide high quality services, laws have to be broken. It is unfortunate that you need to be a large and well funded company to force much needed changes on state and local regulators.
I predict that cities and states which are friendly toward innovation will do better by leaps and bounds in the long run. Betting against change and efficiency tends to be hazardous.
What makes you think that Uber is surprised? Or did you mean that Uber is upset? Being upset at an occurrence is perfectly reasonable, even if you predicted it would occur.
Many states had pre-existing laws which barred auto-makers from selling directly to consumers, this is not significantly different from the many cities which have barred unlicensed taxi operators for a long time. The states are simply the ones 'fighting back' here.
We need a Congressional member to introduce a bill to allow direct sales between car manufacturers and consumers, pronto. If it passes, that would trump any state law that bans that practice.
It is not as simple as federal law 'trumping' state law - congress enacting a law specifically to override a state would be problematic, even if constitutionally solid.
You are not considering the implications of congress interfering in a relatively minor state matter when it refuses to legislate on more pressing state/federal issues (gay marriage, legalising cannabis, etc).
There would be no problem with Congress overriding the state laws. Federal laws always have precedence over state laws, and the federal congress has specific authorization to regulate trade among the several states in the commerce clause of the constitution.[1] Congress has the constitutional authority to ban substances such as cannabis, but not to compel states to allow them.[2] Congress has no authority to interfere with family law, which has always been a matter for the states.[3]
> Federal laws always have precedence over state laws
Be careful with the word 'always'. If a federal law were unconstitutional, and an equivalent state law were not, then clearly it would not trump the state law.
Similarly, despite the modern interpretations of the Commerce Clause, there are Constitutionally imposed limits on federal authority, and they're prescribed a very narrow set of privileges by the Constitution. Depending on the law and its execution, we could very well see a state exercising its rights trump the Commerce Clause. Gary Marbut has fairly carefully crafted such a challenge with his "Montana Buckeroo" rifle which is expressly designed, built and sold only within the confines of Montana, specifically to challenge the Commerce Clause's authority of its manufacture.
That said, he's got some 80-odd years of precedent to overcome, but there may be a quorum that much of that precedent is bad precedent, though it's still a gamble as to whether or not that matters.
The "always" comes from the fact that the federal law would have to be challenged, and it would "trump the state law" until the federal law is struck down (or at least until a preliminary injunction against the federal law has been granted).
While I personally agree with Mr. Marbut's interpretation of the commerce clause's limited scope, I think that the deck is stacked squarely against him, especially since Raich.[1]
"relatively minor state matter when it refuses to legislate when it refuses to legislate on more pressing state/federal issues (gay marriage, legalising cannabis, etc)."
I'm not sure if you're being serious or just completely ignorant about how bills are passed into law. Clearly, a Republican controlled House will not vote in favor of gay marriage or legalizing cannabis. Heck, almost every Democratic state hasn't even legalized cannabis and there are still a good number of Democratic states that haven't recognized gay marriage. Those won't pass the federal level any time soon.
"Minor" issues, by the way, are passed into law all the time because both houses can agree on the bill. Take the JOBS Act or the Pay Our Military Act for instance.
And that is a problem because...? The "reactionary" NSA bill that was introduced a few months ago to combat the NSA's practices almost passed. Do you have a problem with that too?
Couldn't agree more. It's amazing anything that isn't corrupt ever happens in New Jersey's government. Or, at least, I assume things that aren't corrupt do happen at least once in a blue moon. I suppose they got tired of selling kidneys and found a new victim.
Banning Tesla is an index of the corruptness of state governments as banning Uber is of city governments. (https://twitter.com/paulg/status/443469758369767425)
A very astute observation, as usual.