I love how "trolling" is the universal accusation levied when one has no logical way to present a rational position of any kind. Hey, I'll admit that not everything I say might be on point. I am far from perfect. But I think that the elephant in the room is not too hard to identify here.
I asked you a simple question:
How do YOU explain the Uber problem?
I am sure the Uber people would LOVE to discover that government actually isn't their problem and that they should focus their efforts elsewhere.
Maybe the officials are pissed because Uber is using too much Javascript?
No, a discussion about Uber's problems is a discussion about the politics of the deal. That's the issue.
You've spent a few thousand words here that all boil down to 'government is evil' without showing how that relates to the case at hand (It's simple: follow the money) and yet you want me to give you reasons so you can spend a few thousand more words to beat down whatever it was that I might have to say on the subject with more anti-government rants.
Because it continues to frame the debate in terms of the ggps choosing, which have no bearing on the case.
"A government action is wrong/misguided/favors some party and hinders some other"
Does not automatically lead to
"Government is bad".
You can only debate that if you are prepared to take a step back and to list the relative merits / detractions from having some government regulation some of the time and then to try to apply those to the case at hand.
In this case I figure some special interests are being hurt and some particular individuals use their political influence to serve their ends. That does not say anything pro/con the government as an institution, it says something about the particular individuals involved. See Airbnb vs the established hospitality industry, the RIAA/MPAA vs a lot of other entities and a whole slew of examples too numerous to list here.
The one thing that you might extract as a rule is that special interests influencing politics is a bad thing, but in a country where companies are allowed to directly influence politics that is pretty much to be expected.
> In this case I figure some special interests are being hurt and some particular individuals use their political influence to serve their ends. That does not say anything pro/con the government as an institution, it says something about the particular individuals involved.
Exactly! With the exception that, yes, it does say a lot about government as an institution.
A government mature enough to understand that it should not meddle with the competitive forces in markets should take a position of non-interference. It should have the balls to tell even those with political influence --as you termed it-- to go pound sand.
Ultimately, the decision to go after Uber. The decision to attempt to CHANGE LAWS in order to restrict or destroy their business model rests upon one or a group of government actors. Without their agreement to interfere with Uber's business in favor of the taxi industry none of this would be happening. It is government. It is not people who "use their political influence". Government becomes the gating element that enables discriminatory action against interests of an industry that evidence seems to show is in dire need of disruption.
I don't buy my children ice cream every time they ask for it. No matter how much they kick, scream or cry for it. It's about being the adult in the room.
I'll tell you why government agents help the taxi industry rather than Uber. In their political accounting they have no votes to gain by favoring Uber and a lot to loose by letting Uber function freely. Uber has no political value in terms of votes and other political contributions. That's the America we live in today.
Thank you.