Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does Uber violate privacy? People are carrying their phones at all times, so THE BIG BROTHER knows where everyone is anyway.
Not everyone carries a phone, not everyone activates it at all time. An one massive unconscionable data leak doesn't justify others. But since you ask, there was "God View": "'God View': Uber Allegedly Stalked Users For Party-Goers' Viewing Pleasure" (Kashmir Hill) https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/10/03/god-view...
IMF researchers: digital footprint yields better credit assessment
161–165 of 165 posts
Re: IMF researchers: digital footprint yields better credit assessment
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not everyone carries a phone, not everyone activates it at all time. An one massive unconscionable data leak doesn't justify others. But since you ask, there was "God View": "'God View': Uber Allegedly Stalked Users For Party-Goers' Viewing Pleasure" (Kashmir Hill) https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/10/03/god-view...
Uber is a phone app ... so everyone who calls Uber does carry a phone.
Again: not everyone carries a phone.
"An one" in my earlier reply should have been "And one"
Re: IMF researchers: digital footprint yields better credit assessment
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well, I personally haven't consented to socializing the cost of anything. This is a strange take. If you had to "consent" to laws there would be utter chaos. The places where you can pick and choose which laws apply to you have no real laws. And all of those places are dangerous and destitute. That's why laws are decided by the majority, there will always be dissenters for every law out there. Some harmless, but ot…
Here we arrive at the concept of negative and positive rights. You don't have to consent to be subject to laws that bar you from interfering with others. You should have to consent before being forced to provide others with goods and services on the benefit of your labour.
The government plows the streets. Provides police and fire service. Makes sure street lights and sidewalks exist. Handles deeds for property. Handles court cases. If you had to "consent" to all these services providing benefits to other people the entire government would cease to exist.
"I have to consent to anything that doesn't directly benefit me" means a ton of things aren't even going to exist when you actually need them.
Re: IMF researchers: digital footprint yields better credit assessment
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I agree that the healthy should not be compelled to subsidize the costs of healthcare for the unhealthy. Can you tell me why it's ethical to force my compliance? Because it makes health insurance impossible to get when you need it most. It makes health insurance a scam because any serious illness and your company will fire you and you won't be able to get any other insurance. Insurance becomes cheap because it's us…
My argument is that all human interactions should be consensual. Slavery is clearly and obviously out of the questions. Discrimination is the act of making choices, you do it every time you order something to eat. I do belive people should be able to make whatever choices in personal and professional association they please, without anyone trying to peek into their heads and guess at their intentions. I strongly bele…
I'm only explaining the world as I see it, just as you did in the comments above. You shouldn't be so dismissive of dissenting opinions.
In my opinion, your viewpoint that you should be able to choose everything you want to pay for will never work. A sizable portion of the population will decide to pay nothing while still receiving benefits, leading the rest to stop paying.
It's not like you can deposit a nickel for every street light you pass, or every crime prevented by the police. Some services must be paid by everyone if they are to exist at all because their value is not directly tangible.
Education is a good example. You may not go to a school and say "well, I don't go so I shouldn't have to pay for it". Yet you still reap most of the benefits of the rest of the population being able to read and write. If most of the population couldn't read or write the affect on GDP and job availability would be terrible and definitely effect you directly. The value is provided to some extent to everyone in society. The only way to avoid any personal benefit is to live isolated from the rest of society in the middle of nowhere.
Another clear example is government provided healthcare for infectious diseases. The government does a lot of vaccinations and it's impossible to avoid benefitting from that without cutting off all interaction with other humans. You directly benefit from others being vaccinated by having a lower personal risk of getting infected.
I think your view is too narrow and focuses on transactional exchanges, like buying gas or paying a toll. But it doesn't capture the larger benefit to everyone including yourself for things like having less criminals, illiterate people, and junkies running around. Which is the societal benefit to a lot of government programs and why everyone is expected to pay for them.
Your idea of not paying for services you don't use falls apart when considering that many of these services directly benefit you even if you don't directly consume them. And the only way to avoid the benefits is to avoid society completely.
Re: IMF researchers: digital footprint yields better credit assessment
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm afriad you've not pointed out any holes. Where does "the mainstream" get its moral authority from? Just from being mainstream? Don't you see how that's massively problematic? You've not described how my views are amoral either. What's wrong with consent exactly?
The holes have been pointed out to you repeatedly including my own effort here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26120826 Smith makes his case. He is the father of modern economics whether or not you subscribe to his beliefs or not. The question of equity specifically is addressed in the passage: No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. I…
The main value I'm proposing is "consent". It's rather less arbitrary than "flourishing" or "happy" or "fair". The basic premise is that all human interactions, relationships and associations ought to be as consensual as we have realized romantic ones ought to be. You're no more entitled to a surgery or a loan than a partner. If you disagree, then all I'm asking is from where do you derive the entitlement?