11–20 of 133 posts
After reading the article (including the letter which was reproduced within), I feel an equally fair title could be: "Mayor and Commissioner of Transportation lobby for the right to enforce their own rules, not just state laws, on Lyft"
After reading the article (including the letter which was reproduced within), I feel an equally fair title could be: "Mayor and Commissioner of Transportation lobby for the right to enforce their own rules, not just state laws, on Lyft"
How so? It seems like the mayor is reacting to lobbying by Lyft.
- wrote a letter and released it for publication by the press
- gave interviews or quotations to journalists for publication
Both of these seek to influence state legislators, and the evidence is right there in the article.
Where is the evidence of Lyft's lobbying?
And does 'who started it' matter? (I mean, if X did the first lobbying act, does that automatically make them the party in the wrong?)
"Governing itself" isn't some magical good. The cost of incompatible laws in jurisdictions can be large and invisible. Since the legislature ignores the cost of laws, they are encouraged to complicate things as much as possible.
I'm on Lyft's side here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? It seems like the mayor is reacting to lobbying by Lyft.
The state is considering a piece of legislation. The mayor: - wrote a letter and released it for publication by the press - gave interviews or quotations to journalists for publication Both of these seek to influence state legislators, and the evidence is right there in the article. Where is the evidence of Lyft's lobbying? And does 'who started it' matter? (I mean, if X did the first lobbying act, does that automati…
Where is the evidence of Lyft's lobbying?
I'd like to counter your question with a question: why shouldn't a mayor be speaking up to influence state legislators if they believe legislative issues could have an impact on their city? This is literally one of the primary duties of being an elected leader at the city level.
I've seen the effect of San Francisco "governing itself". In many respects, I would rather they didn't. "Governing itself" isn't some magical good. The cost of incompatible laws in jurisdictions can be large and invisible. Since the legislature ignores the cost of laws, they are encouraged to complicate things as much as possible. I'm on Lyft's side here.
I've seen the effect of San Francisco "governing itself". In many respects, I would rather they didn't. "Governing itself" isn't some magical good. The cost of incompatible laws in jurisdictions can be large and invisible. Since the legislature ignores the cost of laws, they are encouraged to complicate things as much as possible. I'm on Lyft's side here.
You want corporate interests to rule a city? That's not even remotely democratic.
I don't think one who holds this particular stance is particularly concerned with the merits of democracy. Call me on it, if I'm wrong, scarejunba.
Color me naive, but I'm always confused why those troubled by the lobbying criticize the influencers instead of the influenced. The influenced aren't some innocent party here. Surely it is more reasonable to act in the best interest of your company as a lobbyist than it is to act against your constituents as a politician. Where is the scathing letter directed towards the writers/signatories/supporters of the bill in…
> I'm always confused why those troubled by the lobbying criticize the influencers instead of the influenced. Bribery tends to be a crime because we haven't found a way to short circuit en masse the human tendency to submit to influence. > Lulz...what kind of terrible spin is that. I would be ashamed if I voted for this guy. Lyft doesn't pass laws. Considering your comment, I shouldn't be surprised that you would be…
Contrary to popular belief, lobbying and bribery are in fact not the same thing.
It's worth noting: as much as a low-quality source like this frames their headline as if devolving control to local government is an unalloyed good, the interplay between the policy of nested polities (eg city, state, federal) is a much more complex issue, and one that people come down on the other side of fairly often (as a simple, dramatic example, the repeal of Roe v Wade is considered to be a nightmare scenario f…
You cited Roe v Wade, well there aren’t many that will simultaneously advocate for a pro-choice position yet also criticize the judgement in Roe v Wade in its legal or constitutional merits or lack thereof. For someone who holds a pro-choice position, Roe v Wade mostly “got the job done” on a national level, and whether SCOTUS should have kicked the buck up to Congress or back over to the States is entirely besides the point. Since it is a form of “law” not easily overturned except by another SCOTUS ruling or an Act of Congress which requires a consensus unlikely to form in either direction, it more or less protected the position of people who are pro-Choice regardless of whether SCOTUS was the correct place to make this call. No one is going to advocate a legal position that is counter to their ideological position except an exceptionally rare breed.
Most people simply cannot compartmentalize the differences in their legal and ideological opinions to the point that when talking to them, they may as well be one and the same. Wherever there is a difference and contradiction, the ideological opinion will almost always win out, and the legal opinion will almost always be construed to support or will be completely overridden altogether.
So whether it is access to abortion or digital taxis, people, corporations, lawyers and politicians alike are going to treat each level of government they have access to and each organ of government as tools to advance their positions. It isn’t these are the rules we have agreed to play by, our legal system is now just a very long multi-sided multi-dimensional game of legal Go to advance competing ideologies, power bases and profit motives. Maybe that is all Law ever was, but conceptually it isn’t that hard to grok this much: all levels of government are at the whims of people who will advance their interests at any cost and wherever they can gain ground. The primary thing keeping these whims in check are competing differing incompatible interests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm always confused why those troubled by the lobbying criticize the influencers instead of the influenced. Bribery tends to be a crime because we haven't found a way to short circuit en masse the human tendency to submit to influence. > Lulz...what kind of terrible spin is that. I would be ashamed if I voted for this guy. Lyft doesn't pass laws. Considering your comment, I shouldn't be surprised that you would be…
> Bribery tends to be a crime because we haven't found a way to short circuit en masse the human tendency to submit to influence Contrary to popular belief, lobbying and bribery are in fact not the same thing.
I've complained about this here before after Uber and Lyft did the same thing in Texas ( https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2017-03-14/lege-f... ), states certainly have an interest in legislative preemption when there's a good and prevailing cause for it, I won't argue the legal merits there, but I think this warrants serious consideration beyond the surface when voters (as was the case in Austin) decide on…