Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 147 posts

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#71

Post by humanrebar »

valarauca1 wrote: post #45
humanrebar wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?). I…

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.

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#72

Post by twoodfin »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #44
efbbbf wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

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 capit…

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.

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#73

Post by rtpg »

Hytosys wrote: post #66
rtpg wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

your "progress of technology" is based off of the exploitation of the lower class. I'd much rather our resources be allocated in a way that doesn't force people to work 3 jobs.

I understand your point but there's a much less stifling middle ground. Unions can be grand things until a line is crossed. Higher wages for drivers? Sure. Safety and insurance? Absolutely. Prolonging the adaptation of a technology that will replace the dangerous alternative (humans operating cars)? Please, no: this job market is now dead for drivers. It's time to move on. Or should we go back to horse-drawn carriage…

I'm sorry, but are we talking about the same company? Uber is not replacing taxi drivers with robots, it's replacing taxi drivers with taxi drivers. It's a dispatch service with a nice payment integration system. No matter how well it is done, there is no quantum leap to it.

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#74

Post by Hytosys »

rtpg wrote: post #73
Hytosys wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your point but there's a much less stifling middle ground. Unions can be grand things until a line is crossed. Higher wages for drivers? Sure. Safety and insurance? Absolutely. Prolonging the adaptation of a technology that will replace the dangerous alternative (humans operating cars)? Please, no: this job market is now dead for drivers. It's time to move on. Or should we go back to horse-drawn carriage…

I'm sorry, but are we talking about the same company? Uber is not replacing taxi drivers with robots, it's replacing taxi drivers with taxi drivers. It's a dispatch service with a nice payment integration system. No matter how well it is done, there is no quantum leap to it.

Did you miss the comment I originally responded to?

> The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#75

Post by matthewmacleod »

donatj wrote: post #47
matthewmacleod wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 li…

IF you don't like Ubers pricing or safety mechanisms take a different taxi. That IS the point. More competition is always better. You don't need mother government to control everything and make the whole world "fair". Grow up and take responsibility for yourself. If there's room for competition there will be cheaper and "safer" alternatived. Are there cases of uber driver on passenger violence and if so how do they c…

IF you don't like Ubers pricing or safety mechanisms take a different taxi. That IS the point

This is a reductive and overly simplistic view that invites that total absence of regulation of any services.

The problem is that consumers are unfortunately not well informed, and that 'fair competition' is extraordinarily difficult to maintain in practice. That's why regulation happens in the first place – to prevent the worst excesses of the market.

I honestly don't understand how you can be on a news site for start ups and be against fair competition.

Then stretch yourself a little harder. Nobody's against fair competition - is it that hard to believe that some people feel fair competition is most effectively achieved not through uncontrolled free markets, but through broadly free markets with some state intervention to ensure a fair playing field? That's not too left-field, and it's the principle that every western state is operating on.

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#76

Post by tim333 »

Shivetya wrote: post #70
gnu8 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The heavy spin is necessary to preserve the image that Uber represents the drivers. Uber really just provides technical infrastructure and marketing, and rakes off most of the profit. Almost all of that wealth should be flowing back to the drivers who provide Uber's actual service. The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for the…

Unionize? What for? They aren't forced to work for Uber. Organize? The very same people, many of whom never did this type of work before, let alone organize, you expect them to step up and try to? As in, before Uber what were they doing, when Uber leaves what do you think they will be doing. Pretty much what they did before Uber, not be a taxi. Unions were a necessary part of life when industrialization first took of…

There's already been one organised protest when Uber tried to screw the drivers. Uber backed down. Seemed quite effective really.

http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-new-york-city-office-pro...

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#77

Post by Hytosys »

marvin wrote: post #69
rtpg wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

your "progress of technology" is based off of the exploitation of the lower class. I'd much rather our resources be allocated in a way that doesn't force people to work 3 jobs.

This leads to the big philosophical question that has been relevant for some time. If we have the choice, which society is preferrable: (1) Most services automated away, and those who don't have the skills or abilities to earn money are supported by taxing those who do (2) technological progress is actively hindered in order to ensure that everyone has the skills to hold a job that pays enough to live on, or (3) most…

I don't know that it is the popular opinion in my country (USA) but I'd choose to live in society (1). I grew up being convinced that a successful person is one who "earns" one's keep, but it's becoming clear that by turning our backs to those in poverty, we make the world a much worse place than if instead we normalized the class bracket to keep the poorest at an approximate income value of ~$30k/yr.

Maybe I should just move to Denmark.

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#78

Post by adventured »

67726e wrote: post #53
Hytosys wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for them to organize, since they all have smartphones and they all end up dissatisfied when Uber cuts their rates. As a consumer who would much rather ride in a self-driving car than with a human driver, this notion pains my heart. Using unions to halt the progress of technology hurts us…

I hope they unionize and demand higher wages. Higher costs for human drivers will increase the incentive for driver-less cars, right?

No, if all the services are unionized, those same unions will then use every means possible to get new laws passed that say you can't have a driver-less taxi. They won't just go quietly, as they watch robots take over, just like taxi drivers aren't now when confronted with uber.

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#79

Post by alextgordon »

rtpg wrote: post #51
Hytosys wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for them to organize, since they all have smartphones and they all end up dissatisfied when Uber cuts their rates. As a consumer who would much rather ride in a self-driving car than with a human driver, this notion pains my heart. Using unions to halt the progress of technology hurts us…

your "progress of technology" is based off of the exploitation of the lower class. I'd much rather our resources be allocated in a way that doesn't force people to work 3 jobs.

If the lower classes are having to work three jobs, it's because of the scarcity of housing, not self-driving cars. Most poor people's biggest monthly expense is rent. An oversupply of housing would go a long way towards helping them.

Of course, the landowning classes will never allow this. We haven't really moved on since the middle ages.

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#80

Post by theli0nheart »

_r1eg wrote: post #21

To anyone who knows more about law, is it legally/morally justifiable to hold individual executives liable for company tactics to this extent? Why don't they just ban/fine the company instead?

Legally, maybe yes, maybe no. But morally? I say yes. Corporations are not autonomous blobs bereft of accountability.
Post reply on HN