Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

Licensing solely exists as a barrier to entry in these cases. That is literally the only purpose.

And it was brought up because Reelya believed that it was an obvious "everyone will agree no-brainer" type issue that all cab drivers should be specially licensed and accredited, and you average person should not be allowed to run taxi services.

Considering the state of licensing and accreditation for cab drivers in the US (at least, but also in general), I find that a hard statement to agree with, since they exist explicitly and solely to keep competition out. It means identified needs (such as the stretch from my Universities distant parking lot to the actual school itself) will never be serviced at all, when an otherwise enterprising student could make some decent work-my-way-through college money doing so.

It's saying "You cannot give these people what they want without government approval". I think that's a bit sketchy as a supposedly basic, no brainer argument.

[scriver]

The NY cab regulations are kind of insane, they're essentially an institutional cartel.

But at the same time, having used cabs overseas I'm okay with some regulation. My wife was in Taiwan, and her taxi drove right past what she knew was the right road to turn onto, then went up a ways, stopped the car and demanded more money. I think the dude was shocked when she started cursing him a blue streak and demanding he go back. He finally gave in when it was clear she wasn't going to be extorted and was likely to turn him into a eunuch if he touched her.

Only problem I ever had was that Chinese cabbies aren't terribly fond of using the road. They'd rather drive on the sidewalk, the median, the lane for oncoming buses, etc. I would not have been surprised had they driven on the side of a building. Again...NY cabbies drive aggressive, but they're not insane. Chinese cabbies are a mixture of insane and fucking brilliant.

Little known fact: Kung Fu walk-running was invented not because it made them more agile fighters or looked cool, but simply because they needed a way to get around town. Taxi drivers are the foremost practicioners of the technique, called Car-Kata, in today's society.

[Reelya]

Also, Reelya, I'm not sure how much "protection" that offers when they only found out what happened thanks to ATM cameras - which could have been adequately accomplished by simply requiring all potential cabs to maintain some publicly displayed identity number on the sides, no?

Well you're just proposing a different licensing and accreditation scheme here.

How's that relevant when my (devil's) argument was that the government shouldn't regulate cabs or road vehicles for that matter at all? Remember i said to do away with driver's licenses, license plates, and any form of cab-driver monitoring.

"requiring" is a law, so it's already slipping back from the free-for-all that i (sarcastically) proposed, which was that anyone and their dog should be allowed to give rides for pay without any government intervention (full libertarian).

you're actually backing up my argument now, not debunking it. By saying that cab company regulation is the solution to the problems i pointed out.

[GlyphGryph]

I was arguing against your stance of Licensing/accreditation being a no brainer, not for the absence of any rules whatsoever. No more than I'm arguing against said taxi driver having to follow speed limits.

Following certain rules != requiring government permission, which was explicitly the stance you were taking. That people should have to get government permission before being allowed to give other people rides in their car (at least when being compensated. Free rides are apparently okay).

I disagree with that.

[Reelya]

I was actually mocking the libertarian extremes which state that e.g. even printing money should be a competitive business, just to make it clear. If you allow private accreditation of e.g. driver's licenses, then everyone can declare themselves an accreditation body, hence nobody needs a license.

Since i was specifically mocking the extreme position of zero-regulations whatsoever saying the current regulation scheme can be modified to improve things isn't related at all to what i was saying. I never claimed the current system was preferable to all other possible regulation schemes, or made any defense of the pricing of licenses.

By saying cabs have to be registered with a central body as cab services you've already back-tracked from the idea that "anyone" can advertised themselves as a cab-service without any registration.

It's not the same as "taxi drivers must follow the speed limit" at all, you're saying special rules just for cabs must exist (a central registrar, checkable registered ID information located on the side of the cab), to answer some of the potential problems with safety of clients. So, not "anyone" can offer these rides then, they must still go through a vetting process and be tracked by the authorities.

[GreatJustice]

I was actually mocking the libertarian extremes which state that even printing money should be a competitive business, just to make it clear. If you allow private accreditation of e.g. driver's licenses, then everyone can declare themselves an accreditation body, hence nobody needs a license.

Since i was specifically mocking the extreme position of zero-regulations whatsoever saying the current regulation scheme can be modified to improve things isn't related at all to what i was saying. I never claimed the current system was preferable to all other regulation schemes.

Regulations don't necessarily stem from government, though.

Again, household appliances by your definition should be the "Wild West", yet they are quite safe in general. Why? Because private agencies like the CSA and UL exist that check their safety, and in turn other companies (eg. insurance companies) consider their ratings when dealing with customers. Just because there isn't a law against X does not mean X will happen.

[Nadaka]

I was actually mocking the libertarian extremes which state that even printing money should be a competitive business, just to make it clear. If you allow private accreditation of e.g. driver's licenses, then everyone can declare themselves an accreditation body, hence nobody needs a license.

Since i was specifically mocking the extreme position of zero-regulations whatsoever saying the current regulation scheme can be modified to improve things isn't related at all to what i was saying. I never claimed the current system was preferable to all other regulation schemes.

Regulations don't necessarily stem from government, though.

Again, household appliances by your definition should be the "Wild West", yet they are quite safe in general. Why? Because private agencies like the CSA and UL exist that check their safety, and in turn other companies (eg. insurance companies) consider their ratings when dealing with customers. Just because there isn't a law against X does not mean X will happen.

By definition regulations stem from the government. The government is the only body with authority to enforce regulations.

[GlyphGryph]

You can have non-government regulations, but they do, ultimately, have to stem from a basic example of government power - the criminalization of fraud.

Once you've got that, you can have private regulations that are required in order to get a recommendation or "stamp of approval", and this does work sometimes. For example, the video game industry with its ESRB ratings.

[kaijyuu]

Hehe, the ESRB is such a joke.

[lorb]

I was actually mocking the libertarian extremes which state that e.g. even printing money should be a competitive business, just to make it clear. If you allow private accreditation of e.g. driver's licenses, then everyone can declare themselves an accreditation body, hence nobody needs a license.

Driver's licenses don't function because there is a monopoly on issuing them, but because the police stops you from operating a vehicle if you don't have a valid one. In an extreme libertarian world streets/roads would be owned by private persons, which may or may not allow you to drive on them depending on whether you have a license issued by them or not. A radical libertarian may than argue that if that proves to be impractical or dangerous a private organization will arise to deal with it. (An this company will also deal with driving practices because accidents cause a lot of economic damage and so there is profit to be made by preventing them.)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The ESRB is just kind of an advisory thing, and like the Hayes Code and MPAA before it they sprung up to try to cut the government off at the pass and have "soft" censorship instead of legally enforced censorship.

But now that comics, movies, and video games have all been declared as under the First Amendment they're unnecessary.

[lorb]

By definition regulations stem from the government. The government is the only body with authority to enforce regulations.

No. They can also stem from an economic imbalance of power. Imagine someone with a monopoly on some crucial infrastructure: "You want to use it? First you gotta pay me, second you gonna behave like I say (e.g. to avoid damage to my property) or you are banned from using it."

[Euld]

Hehe, the ESRB is such a joke.

No kidding o_O  Assassin's Creed is rated M, then EA sells action figures in toy stores.  Yeah I don't understand that one either.

[Moghjubar]

I was actually mocking the libertarian extremes which state that e.g. even printing money should be a competitive business, just to make it clear. If you allow private accreditation of e.g. driver's licenses, then everyone can declare themselves an accreditation body, hence nobody needs a license.

Driver's licenses don't function because there is a monopoly on issuing them, but because the police stops you from operating a vehicle if you don't have a valid one. In an extreme libertarian world streets/roads would be owned by private persons, which may or may not allow you to drive on them depending on whether you have a license issued by them or not. A radical libertarian may than argue that if that proves to be impractical or dangerous a private organization will arise to deal with it. (An this company will also deal with driving practices because accidents cause a lot of economic damage and so there is profit to be made by preventing them.)

If there is a lack of government, private citizens will rise up and become the government.  What 'age' this government is in will vary.

[Sheb]

A good exemple of non-governamental regulation is the FIFA that regulate soccer cup. It actually has courts and fine players for stuff like fixing results. Dunno what's the libertarian point of view on this: a good exemple that government isn't needed, or a exemple that if government was to stop doing some things, bodies would grow in its place to enforce the same kind of liberty-destroying regulations.