If you want a backdoor free future where people are in control of the devices they own- read Richard Stallman, support the FSF, and the libreboot project.
Do you know what the biggest impediment is to the adoption of the FSF's ideals? Richard Stallman and the FSF. And I say this as a frequent contributor to and developer of open-source projects.
Yeah, they're right about a lot of important points, and on some of them Stallman's practically been the lone voice crying in the wilderness long before the rest of the world caught on. But it's often much easier to correctly identify a problem than to have a good solution for it. (Just ask an oncologist!)
The problem is, a lot of people don't really understand this distinction, and when you come up with a bad solution, it discredits your correct identification of the problem by association. (Karl Marx comes to mind.) That's where we are with the FSF. By pushing "solutions" like the GPL, which if you're honest is more of a political statement than a license, they turn a lot of people off, alienating powerful potential-allies.
It's been said that a heretic is someone who believes almost all the same things as you, and they must be destroyed without mercy. The FSF would have a lot more success if they would stop treating "Open Source" like a bunch of heretics, for starters.
You appear to be under the impression that in this day and age, journalism and exposure can do a thing to dissuade these companies. As a counterargument, I offer... oh, I dunno... maybe every single thing that we found out the oil industry has done since the invention of the Internet?
It is more of a quality issue. Most of what regulation does is raise the minimum requirements for a market.
I don't understand why so many people don't understand this very simple point. Libertarians love to complain about how regulations make things more expensive to produce, as if all the money was just vanishing into a black hole somewhere. As if they're completely ignorant of basic economics, and how producing a higher quality product (which regulations enforce, by setting a minimum bar) is generally more expensive. (And if they're not completely ignorant, then they do know this, and are deliberately looking for ways to get away with producing a poor-quality product. Either way, it's a harmful ideology.)
Sounds like a heaping helping of Special Pleading fallacy to me. Why would human nature be so radically different for "more personal services" that would cause the clear pattern we've seen with WalMart and airlines to not hold true in this specific case?
2) So long as a person has the appropriate insurance, why should they be banned from making money with their own property to earn some extra money.
Because one of the most fundamental rules of civilization is that you can't just do whatever you want just because you can. The pro-Uber folks, either out of ignorance or straight-up maliciousness, keep trying to paint this as some sort of David and Goliath story about an evil, oppressive "guild" shutting down competition.
The reality is that taxi driver certifications are very important. If you're going to get in a cab, you have to be able to trust that the person behind the wheel is competent (not going to get you killed) and trustworthy (not going to rob, kidnap, murder, or simply swindle you). Think about the amount of trust you're extending, placing your life and safety in the driver's hands by getting into a cab. Certification provides a time-honored, well-understood way of demonstrating that that trust is warranted.
Yes, it's expensive; most things of great value in life are. And so when a bunch of gypsy cab operators start breaking all the relevant laws and undercutting the legitimate taxi drivers, and then completely unsurprisingly causing harm all over (privacy violations, price gouging, maliciously interfering with competitors by calling for fake rides, etc,) why is anyone surprised that people don't like it?
...oh yeah. Because they've been fed a line of crap about how it's about noble rebels fighting the Evil Empire of the "guild system", and they believed it.
Precisely. I don't understand why someone as intelligent as Mike keeps on making this same mistake over and over, acting as if people have a problem with Uber competing with taxi companies and disrupting their monopolies. What people have a problem with is them acting as if they were run by an Objectivist, (most likely because they are!) flouting the law at every opportunity, trampling on the rights of everyone who's not Uber, harming their workers and their customers, and yet somehow playing the media skillfully enough that most people never find out about all the crap they pull and they somehow come out looking like good guys.
That's what the people who don't like them don't like.
...and do you know what happens to people who engage in acts of civil disobedience by breaking the law? They very frequently end up getting arrested or having other punishments meted out upon their heads, as befits people who break the law.
People who choose to engage in civil disobedience know this, and they do so with their eyes wide open, betting that they'll be vindicated by the court of public opinion and come out ahead in the long run. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
To try to make the claim that someone should be able to get away with blatantly flouting the law, whether or not you believe it's a form of noble "civil disobedience", without any legal consequences, is pure fantasy.
The French bureaucrats are now telling law enforcement to seize cars from Uber drivers. Really.
Yes, really. That's what happens when you make a habit of flouting the law: the law eventually decides enough is enough.
If you don't like the law, the appropriate thing to do in a democratic society is to work to get the law changed. Instead, like the barbarians who run the company, Uber has been thumbing its nose at the law and saying "Nyah, nyah! So what are you going to do about it?"
Well... this is what. It's about time, and I really hope the USA follows their example.
Re: Re: Let's ban the skull and crossbones from the stores
Nuclear war? Better ban Mario, then. All those mushrooms that make him expand in size are obviously secret references to mushroom clouds, that keep expanding and getting bigger and bigger until they've devastated an entire city...
And if only everyone was as level-headed as yourself about it, the world would be a better place. But attitudes like this do exist, and there's a reason why the TVTropes page about it is titled "Still Fighting The Civil War".
Sure, most people can study AT&T and Verizon's behavior over the last thirty years and conclude that yes, this sort of thing would certainly be in their jackassery wheelhouse, but proving it is kind of important if you want these kinds of claims to be taken seriously.
At what point do these studies provide enough evidence to surpass whatever burden of "reasonable doubt" or similar is required to give them standing to initiate legal action, at which point these secrets-that-should-not-be-secret can be exposed during the process of discovery?