Agreed. It's odd. Somehow the very words "Nazi" and "Hitler" have become almost unique synonyms for pure evil.
Godwin's Law has formalized this - the moment "Nazi" is mentioned in any discussion, rational debate stops and you're in the territory of moral absolutes.
For example, we can't complain about "Gestapo" tactics of the NSA - we have to call them "Stasi" tactics. Because NO MATTER WHAT THE REALITY, it can't possibly be as bad as the Nazis. By definition.
Not that Nazis weren't evil - they were every bit as horrible as their reputation.
But why are they perceived as uniquely horrible? What about Pol Pot, or Vlad the Impaler, or any number of historical conquerors who routinely murdered every single man, woman, and child in a captured city?
The Nazis were indeed evil, but the only thing unusual about their evil was how efficient they were at it and their proximity to the center of Western culture.
I can't think of another defeated enemy that has become so demonized.
You didn't directly answer it, but reading between the lines, you seem to be claiming that:
1) The situation is analogous to driver's licenses. But drivers licences are to protect 3rd parties from getting hit. I don't see how that is analogous - what 3rd party is endangered by Uber?
2) "Consumer protection and safely" requires that people be prevented from using the ride service they want.
But who knows better what is best for consumers than consumers themselves? You? Who gave you the right to tell everyone else how to live their lives?
Why should your opinion be considered better than the opinion of the people who want to use these services? If they get cheated, they will be the ones harmed, not you.
In any case, the normal laws against fraud and cheating still apply, regardless of any special protectionist "regulation".
Earlier you said I "sound like a disgruntled Uber or Lyft driver who is against regulation". Well, I am not. I've never driven professionally, and I don't expect I ever will. But I am against "regulation" when it is not required to protect innocent 3rd parties, and when it is a smokescreen for protection against legitimate competition.
What about you? Do you have a personal axe to grind here?
I'll ask again - why should you, who calls these services the pejorative term "Gypsy Cabs", and seems generally upset by the whole idea, have the right to tell other people what services they can and can't use?
It is NOT like a driver's license - there is no risk of harm to 3rd parties. And if there are losers, the losers will be those who choose to use the service, not the public, and not you. (Unless, of course, you are a taxi driver.)
Re: When Secrecy and Loss of Liberty for Protection...
That will surely happen if we all don't act to prevent it.
But it is not foreordained.
"Optimism is a duty. The future is open. It is not fixed in advance. So no one can predict it – except by chance. The possibilities lying within the future, both good and bad, are boundless. When I say, “Optimism is a duty”, this means not only that the future is open but that we all help to decide it through what we do. We are all jointly responsible for what is to come. So we all have a duty, instead of predicting something bad, to support the things that may lead to a better future." --Sir Karl Popper
Re identifying owners - vehicles already have VIN numbers that are registered in the same DMV database as the license plate number. But VIN numbers are printed small and can't be seen at a distance (you can see them thru the windshield of a parked car).
Re stolen cars - how do you uniquely describe the mugger so the cops don't stop everyone in a red t-shirt with a baseball cap? Same answer.
I can't think of any argument for license plates on cars that doesn't equally apply to pedestrians.
If you think you should be required to wear a big sign with your SSN whenever you walk in public, then you'll think license plates are a good idea too.
We accept them now only because we're used to them.
Because extra spaces at the end of lines happen all the time naturally, in documents that don't have any hidden messages.
Variable width spaces in between words don't normally appear in ordinary documents. So their presence would be be a red flag that there may be a hidden message...which defeats the purpose of hiding it.
And I've got no idea which side is right or wrong here.
But Tim says:
There's more to a court battle than losing assets. There's a whole lot of intermediate bleeding that can be done, especially if the plaintiff is in a better financial position.
I don't see what Jones has to lose by fighting here. Assuming he represents himself, all he can lose is his time in court and his 7 chickens. If the justice system is just(*) and he's in the right, he'll win (despite having a fool for client & attorney). If he loses, he's out 7 chickens.
Am I missing something?
(*) Honestly, my impression is that courts are not as bad as many claim - outside a few horrible areas discussed a lot here. Most judges seem to make a real effort to deliver justice, when the law and precedent allows them to.