[chipsy]

There are many arguments made to support the case of global open borders. The main premise for worry comes from waves of destitute migrants overwhelming the infrastructure and natural carrying capacity of rich cities and dragging them down; however, the megacities of the developing world are a case study in what actually happens in such a situation, and although it presents major challenges, it's not all bad. Cities and economies benefit when they get bigger, even as extreme dysfunctions creep in.

However, it's ultimately moot as long as leaders look towards questions of immigration, nationality, and origin as useful wedge issues.

[sillygeese]

It's interesting how we normal people discuss and debate the merits and justifications for various policies that we have no say in.

We automatically assume that our Dear Leaders are doing the same, weighing the pros and cons of whatever decisions they're making, and trying to choose wisely.

But in reality, they're just pursuing their personal gain at our expense.

For example, a free trade agreement is really simple: just "agree" to let people trade freely. Can you guess if people would like that? But politicians want their bribes and various business conglomerates want obstacles to competing with them.

Lots of people are happy with Uber's service, and lots of other ordinary people are happy to drive for them. Who benefits from Uber being banned?

Lots of people are happy using AirBnB's, and others are happy renting their apartments for extra income. Who benefits from AirBnB being banned?

See how this works? Does it look like our hallowed leaders are working in our interest?

Do you think they have a reason to? I mean, if they just get out of the way and let people produce wealth and trade freely, what's in it for them?

[Nursie]

>> Lots of people are happy with Uber's service, and lots of other ordinary people are happy to drive for them. Who benefits from Uber being banned?

I'm sorry but this ignores the converse side of this.

Our system of laws and protections has been built up over many years and if there are rules that prevent an Uber-like service from starting up then there was probably a bloody good reason they were put in place.

That reason may be buried in layers of legal cruft. It may be obscured entirely. It may not even be relevant any more.

Perhaps that means that laws should be reviewed more often, but it doesn't mean throwing out the rulebook in its entirety and then going on to repeat the same mistakes that lead us to have the rules in the first place.

>> Lots of people are happy using AirBnB's, and others are happy renting their apartments for extra income. Who benefits from AirBnB being banned?

This one's easy - people who live in a residential block who didn't sign up to live in a hotel.

[sillygeese]

> if there are rules that prevent an Uber-like service from starting up then there was probably a bloody good reason they were put in place

That's quite an assumption. Care to back that up somehow?

Consider that free(er) competition results in quality increasing and prices decreasing. That's how it works when providers have to please their customers more than their competitors. It's extremely simple, and axiomatic.

So when you see that Uber is just one service provider in the market for paid transportation, how do you think it could possibly be better for us that "regulations" prevent Uber from operating, i.e. competing with government-approved taxi services?

> This one's easy - people who live in a residential block who didn't sign up to live in a hotel.

It's like, you could have some.. rules about how to behave in rental apartments, and they could even be included in the contracts!

"Dear Customer. Because lots of ordinary people live in this building and have to wake up early, it's important that you behave nicely and don't make noise after 22:00. If you find this unacceptable, we can't rent this apartment to you".

Is that so difficult? Or do we genuinely need some distant, nebulous organization to prevent people from being able to voluntarily accept terms and trades like that?

[Nursie]

>> That's quite an assumption. Care to back that up somehow?

Well there was, for instance, the rule brought in a few years ago in London that minicabs have to be called from a registered business, they can't just hang around soliciting for business. This was in direct response to women being picked up by unregistered drivers and raped. That's just one example of regulation that has sprung up to protect the public.

>> Consider that free(er) competition results in quality increasing and prices decreasing.

It can result in a race to the bottom just as easily.

>> That's how it works when providers have to please their customers more than their competitors. It's extremely simple, and axiomatic.

Pleasing customers is not the be-all and end-all of ... anything really. I like to use the example of hygiene ratings and checks in restaurants. This is a government function that makes sure people don't die. It is absolutely not good enough to leave this to the market. It is absolutely not good enough to say that if people get poisoned then the business will fail. Firstly because people already got poisoned and secondly because we have a whole heap of history to show us that dodgy operators keep going!

>> So when you see that Uber is just one service provider in the market for paid transportation, how do you think it could possibly be better for us that "regulations" prevent Uber from operating, i.e. competing with government-approved taxi services?

I'm not necessarily taking on Uber specifically, but your underlying point that all regulation is bad. I gave an example above of a regulation that came in for a reason. If Uber are falling foul of regulations like this then as I said, it's a good reason to take a look at what might be wrong with the regulations, not throw them out completely just to facilitate the new cab company in town.

>> It's like, you could have some.. rules about how to behave in rental apartments, and they could even be included in the contracts!

Right, behave or we won't rent to you next time! Never mind that this time they caused hell to the other residents. And the next group do it too. But it's OK because you won't rent to them next time either. And never mind that having a never-ending stream of new people in and out of the building fundamentally changes the nature of a residential block. No, fuck everyone else and what they wanted out of a place to live.

This is the very kernel of the problem - the negative externalities are ignored. That's why prices are cheaper, that's why there are problems with these businesses flouting laws that protect people.

I also find it very interesting that you chose to say this -

"That's how it works when providers have to please their customers more than their competitors."

You clearly have a preconceived notion that all opposition to these sorts of businesses comes from their competitors. It does not. I don't give a shit about taxi medallions or whether hotels don't like the competition.

I do give a shit about consumer protection, fire regulations, safety, hygiene requirements, workers rights and many, many other things that have been hard won over many, many years. Things we're not all clamouring to discard for a slightly cheaper cab ride or bed to sleep in.

[sillygeese]

> Well there was, for instance, the rule brought in a few years ago in London that minicabs have to be called from a registered business, they can't just hang around soliciting for business. This was in direct response to women being picked up by unregistered drivers and raped. That's just one example of regulation that has sprung up to protect the public.

That makes no sense. I don’t see how regulation might conceivably make it more difficult for “unregistered drivers” to rape women. All you need to understand is that even if it did, the rapists would just move on to more opportune circumstances for finding victims.

Therefore, the regulation is not justified by the idea of preventing rape. It’s just not going to. I doubt you sincerely thought it would either.

>> Consider that free(er) competition results in quality increasing and prices decreasing.

> It can result in a race to the bottom just as easily.

Free competition certainly does cause a race to the bottom of economically viable prices. I’m not sure what you’re getting at there, but “can” is just not enough when the way competition works is clear to anyone with half a brain.

> Pleasing customers is not the be-all and end-all of ... anything really.

Um.. I guess not? So what?

> I like to use the example of hygiene ratings and checks in restaurants. This is a government function that makes sure people don't die.

Alright, that’s it. I’m withdrawing your benefit of the doubt. Do you want me to believe you have no idea how people make successful sales on eBay, for example?

> I gave an example above of a regulation that came in for a reason.

There’s always a reason. It’s just that it’s never to benefit the public, because there’s no point in ruling over people besides to benefit at their expense.

> Right, behave or we won't rent to you next time!

How about: ”adhere to this contract, or we’ll sue you”?

> This is the very kernel of the problem - the negative externalities are ignored.

There’s a certain group of “people” that sure likes talking about “externalities”.. :P

> I do give a shit about consumer protection, fire regulations, safety, hygiene requirements, workers rights and many, many other things that have been hard won over many, many years. Things we're not all clamouring to discard for a slightly cheaper cab ride or bed to sleep in.

Oh you managed to sneak in some shaming too! Well done!

[Nursie]

>> That makes no sense. I don’t see how regulation might conceivably make it more difficult for “unregistered drivers” to rape women.

Easy - minicabs are not allowed to hang around outside clubs and pubs looking for business. Therefore drunk women are less likely to just stumble into any old car outside the venue, because they know the legal operators are a call (or app-click or whatever) away. They call a cab service, the call is on record, the company is licensed, the car that picked her up is recorded, the driver is a known individual.

>> All you need to understand is that even if it did, the rapists would just move on to more opportune circumstances for finding victims.

Maybe so, maybe not, it certainly takes away one comparatively easy avenue of attack.

>> Therefore, the regulation is not justified by the idea of preventing rape. It’s just not going to. I doubt you sincerely thought it would either.

Actually people think that in general it has helped. I'm not sure how possible it is to say definitely that is has or it hasn't helped the overall number of rapes, there's certainly no solid ground for you to say "Therefore the regulation is not justified".

>> Alright, that’s it. I’m withdrawing your benefit of the doubt. Do you want me to believe you have no idea how people make successful sales on eBay, for example?

I withdrew yours some time ago, you're clearly driven by ideology rather than reality. Yes, I know about ebay and rating services. No, I don't agree they're fit for purpose in all instances, sorry.

>> There’s always a reason. It’s just that it’s never to benefit the public, because there’s no point in ruling over people besides to benefit at their expense.

More ideologically driven nonsense. It's very often to benefit the public.

>> How about: ”adhere to this contract, or we’ll sue you”?

Again, the action has already happened, already made other lives worse. And that still doesn't address the change in usage pattern and how that impacts the other residents.

>> There’s a certain group of “people” that sure likes talking about “externalities”.. :P

I don't even know what you mean by this.

>> Oh you managed to sneak in some shaming too! Well done!

No, there was no shaming implied there, simply stating that very often rules and regs have grown in these areas for good reasons that protect people and listing a few areas in which I consider them both useful and important.

--edit-- Please note I'm not saying Uber fall foul of that particular taxi regulation, it was just an example of a regulation that was put in place to protect the public even if you think it was misguided. Uber's model of using an app to request a car certainly seems to fall within the law there.

[gioele]

> The main premise for worry comes from waves of destitute migrants overwhelming the infrastructure and natural carrying capacity of rich cities and dragging them down

I always wondered: are the people in the US asking for the establishment of closed borders to prevent people from moving from the poor Mississippi to the rich California?

[merpnderp]

We're not all the same and people aren't interchangeable. Some cultures think owning women is a good thing. Some cultures think homosexuality is a crime. And some cultures don't want to let those cultures have influence over their lives.

[ectoplasm]

Another concern is a lower per capita federal tax base.