[EdHominem]

The city isn't being bullied, Uber is.

Nobody is forcing the mayor to ride in Uber.

> The lack of a standardized policy around ridesharing-apps is something I think we can all agree is worse.

No. The problem isn't the lack of a standard policy, but a policy at all.

The policies are all designed to protect incumbents and funnel money to the city. Thanks, but no-thanks, standardized or not.

[studentrob]

> The city isn't being bullied, Uber is.

I said both are bullying each other.

> The problem isn't the lack of a standard policy, but a policy at all.

"Standard" policy, or just "policy", same thing. The solution to this problem is for the parties to talk it out.

> The policies are all designed to protect incumbents and funnel money to the city

That's a good thing. City officials are incentivized to bring in more tax money. It's good for the city, and it is more likely they'll get re-elected if they do so. They also need to balance public safety and consider public perception of these issues while constantly sharing facts with the public. It's not an easy job.

[EdHominem]

> I said both are bullying each other.

How can a city - a bureaucracy - be bullied? If I file a lot of paperwork they get paid for dealing with it. If I scoff at a law, the city employees don't personally suffer.

> The solution to this problem is for the parties to talk it out.

The city has nothing to offer except to stop interfering and they win simply by dragging the process out.

> That's a good thing. City officials are incentivized to bring in more tax money.

Yes, they are incentivized to do it but those incentives don't align with the residents.

We could extract more money by raising your personal tax rate to 100% but while that would superficially help revenue it would ultimately hurt the community (you'll feel robbed by your neighbors) and the business climate in the city.

People already pay sales tax on Uber rides, and Uber (drivers) pay tax on gasoline, cars, etc. The city is already collecting at multiple points.

> They also need to balance public safety

They've shown that's not a concern with this nonsense over fingerprinting; Uber rides are already an order of magnitude safer than cabs because your account is linked to the car you enter, whose path is being logged in the cloud, etc.

[studentrob]

> How can a city - a bureaucracy - be bullied?

Public officials hold positions as both representatives and leaders. Their voice holds sway. When a company attempts to hammer home the message that they are right and local officials are wrong, that's bullying. It's normal and happens all the time. What I'm suggesting is rather than fighting in the public arena via 3rd party messaging which is saying "I'm right, they're wrong", these parties would be better off calmly stating their positions to the public via their official mediums, or doing it at the negotiation table. It's clear that hasn't happened because this has blossomed into a dramatic news story.

[EdHominem]

> When a company attempts to hammer home the message that they are right and local officials are wrong, that's bullying.

The city officials making up nonsense about fingerprinting drivers, for safety, is the bullying. Implying that Uber and Lyft drivers are rapists and the companies don't care. And lying about the ability of fingerprint to save lives, even if.

Given that officials are managing perception, not fact, they are wrong, and deserve to be called out for it. That's not bullying, just the price of making unsupportable claims.

> Public officials hold positions as both representatives and leaders. Their voice holds sway.

Unless that magically makes them right, it's irrelevant.

> these parties would be better off calmly stating their positions to the public via their official mediums, or doing it at the negotiation table.

How would negotiating for the same rights as any other business help Uber and Lyft? Please sir, may I have the right to buy gas, serve passengers, etc?

When you deal with people for whom perception is more important than facts, you're never going to win by discussing facts.

[studentrob]

> When you deal with people for whom perception is more important than facts, you're never going to win by discussing facts.

I think you're missing my point about perception. The world runs on perception. When presented with the same facts, even two identical twins may come up with a different conclusion. They each lead different lives.

I understand where you're coming from because I used to believe in hard truths too. This is the main point of our disagreement, and it's not worth discussing the details of the situation in Austin further without first agreeing on this point. I know we'll disagree on Austin because of our disagreement about perception of facts. Perhaps the world's most famous diplomat, Henry Kissinger, discusses this frequently, for example here [1], here [2], and here [3]. I think [3] is the best example because it shows when Kissinger changed his point of view on the subject of facts vs. perception. This is a man who opened up China to trading with the rest of the world after 30 years of disconnect. He's not perfect but he knows how to work with people and make things happen.

> How would negotiating for the same rights as any other business help Uber and Lyft? Please sir, may I have the right to buy gas, serve passengers, etc?

I think you have to come to the table with a mindset other than "you're out to get us". You need to believe that there is some merit to the government or people's position, and that they might have reason to believe that the public perceive a government background check is more secure than a private one, and would vote accordingly (as they did). Whether the fingerprint-based background check is better or not becomes irrelevant at the negotiating table. One can't wave a magic wand and change public perception to align with what you believe. Politicians will negotiate based on the public's view. The facts about background checks are useful to present on U/L's website or in media, but the only thing that matters to the politician will be public perception. This is why you see some politicians flipping on things like gay marriage. They weren't necessarily ideologically against it in 1990, they just felt they didn't have the strength to change the voters' view on the topic. You can call that weakness but there are tons of issues like this and gauging public opinion is really hard. Politicians spend all their time at it. There's a pretty good podcast from This American Life on the subject [4]. Politicians spend all their time calling people asking for money, which is a way of connecting with people and hearing their views. Barney Frank says,

"If the voters have a position, the votes will kick money's rear end any time. I've never met a politician-- I've been in the legislative bodies for 40 years now-- who, choosing between a significant opinion in his or her district and a number of campaign contributors, doesn't go with the district." [4]

[1] https://youtu.be/wooGL__-OvA?t=10m06s

[2] https://youtu.be/wooGL__-OvA?t=57m24s

[3] https://youtu.be/_eM_z4vRxrA?t=5m52s

[4] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...

[EdHominem]

> You need to believe that there is some merit to the government or people's position,

We've seen them invent the fear ("You'll be raped") and spend tax money freaking people out with that idea, as well as the thoroughly useless idea to fingerprint drivers. It's a bad solution to a fake problem.

If taxi-rape really was a problem (as opposed to a statistical anomaly) they'd realize that Uber and Lyft are already an order of magnitude better. (They log so much more!)

> I think you're missing my point about perception. The world runs on perception. When presented with the same facts, even two identical twins may come up with a different conclusion. They each lead different lives.

They both live in the same world, where the same number of people have been abducted and raped. It's ultimately a factual issue.

> and that they might have reason to believe that the public perceive a government background check is more secure than a private one, and would vote accordingly (as they did).

We know why they believe the public thinks this - they spent time and money creating and advertising it.

The public might also think they have an opinion on the brand of police car, or the type of transformers used in their electrical system, etc, but without relevant data their opinions would be meaningless.

If the politicians spent months lying about one company's transformer as being a "kiddy cooker", do you think the discussion would be meaningful?

> The facts about background checks are useful to present on U/L's website or in media, but the only thing that matters to the politician will be public perception.

Right, the only thing that matters to a politician will be their own propaganda and the money they can make from it. Facts are those thing you use to judge actual effectiveness and if we tried that we'd see there isn't a problem to try to fix.

> Whether the fingerprint-based background check is better or not becomes irrelevant at the negotiating table.

Right, it's about the graft. The issues are lies and nonsense; you can't meet in the middle because there is no middle. There's common sense and there's a cash grab and there isn't a way to reconcile those.

When you realize you're being railroaded, the best solution is to not play.

If they stayed the best they could accomplish would be paying some graft for some useless services which would then become standard. (Well, if Austin needs that, so do we!) That'd make their service worse for everyone, everywhere.

> Barney Frank says, (paraphrased) ["I've never seen a politician who didn't decide what to say by seeing what would pay the most."]

They see a potential new tax base and jobs they can claim to have invented. (Fingerprinting drivers and checking that. Both require new workers, etc...) And none of the politicians care about the services offered because they already have limo service. There's no downside for them in ruining it for others.

> I think you have to come to the table with a mindset other than "you're out to get us".

So when they are out to get you, you should be delusional and refuse to admit it?

No, Uber and Lyft did the right thing. They walked away from the scammers.

[studentrob]

> If I file a lot of paperwork they get paid for dealing with it. If I scoff at a law, the city employees don't personally suffer.

This is a really narrow minded view of the role of a politician. Their job depends upon public satisfaction. If the public is not happy with what they do, they risk losing their job.

Elected officials are not making big bucks in overtime dealing with extra paperwork.

> The city has nothing to offer except to stop interfering and they win simply by dragging the process out.

This makes no sense. The city doesn't win by excluding businesses from operating, nor do the city officials. City officials win by doing what is in the interest of the public, and by sharing details with the public that they might not otherwise know. The same can be said of businesses and their PR efforts.

> Yes, they are incentivized to do it but those incentives don't align with the residents.

Balancing taxes, security, etc. is in the interest of residents. Taxes permit the government to pay for police, firemen, road construction, schools, etc. Security permits them to move freely without needing to focus much on that themselves.

> We could extract more money by raising your personal tax rate to 100% but while that would superficially help revenue it would ultimately hurt the community (you'll feel robbed by your neighbors) and the business climate in the city.

In balancing these there is a give and take. Setting one weight to 100% is not an option in a balanced equation.

> People already pay sales tax on Uber rides, and Uber (drivers) pay tax on gasoline, cars, etc. The city is already collecting at multiple points.

Yup I don't dispute that.

> They've shown that's not a concern with this nonsense over fingerprinting

You're overlooking the importance of perception. Facts are nothing on their own. How people interpret them is what counts. At the moment, the Austin public's perception is that fingerprinting is something that ride sharing services should do.

[EdHominem]

> Elected officials are not making big bucks in overtime dealing with extra paperwork.

The city is not the elected officials, it's the myriad workers who perform the day-to-day work. The city apparatus survives just fine even if the elected officials end up with egg on their face. Perhaps better.

> This is a really narrow minded view of the role of a politician. Their job depends upon public satisfaction. If the public is not happy with what they do, they risk losing their job.

If you screw up majorly at work, do you not risk losing your job? That's as it should be.

Wasting time and (apparently scarce) city money on propaganda and unreasonable demands seems like a good reason.

> City officials win by doing what is in the interest of the public,

You yourself point out that they win by being perceived to do that's in the interest of the public, not some hard to define "actual good".

> You're overlooking the importance of perception. Facts are nothing on their own. How people interpret them is what counts.

Enacting useless policies only helps their reelection campaign. Facts are everything, not nothing.

> Taxes permit the government to pay for [stuff]

And income is what lets a Lyft employee feed their family.

The city is already making more in tax since Uber and Lyft went in - from every taxable good and service they consume, and as trickle-down from their drivers' spending, etc. But that doesn't show up on the balance sheets with a politician's name next to it so its worthless to the people making these unreasonable demands.

> At the moment, the Austin public's perception is that fingerprinting is something that ride sharing services should do.

An idea it got from city officials why scrambled for something to do, not something useful to do.

It doesn't matter that Uber is safer than a cab, if you can't attach your name to that claim you're politically better off banning it.

[studentrob]

> The city is not the elected officials

The city is everyone, both elected officials and those who elected them. The elected officials represent the desires of the city whenever they were last elected.

> The city apparatus survives just fine even if the elected officials end up with egg on their face. Perhaps better.

Yes, this is exactly why we have a democratic republic and we don't referendum everything. It gives the public a chance to blame one individual rather than each other.

> If you screw up majorly at work, do you not risk losing your job? That's as it should be.

Of course. My point was that city employees do suffer when you scoff at the law. They risk losing their jobs. Many roles are appointed by the elected administration.

> Wasting time and (apparently scarce) city money on propaganda and unreasonable demands seems like a good reason.

The government spent money holding a referendum that potentially would have benefited U/L. You're certainly free to voice your concerns about how tax money is spent. The city, in my opinion, acted properly.

> not some hard to define "actual good".

Right, I didn't say "actual good", I said "interest of the public". That is another way of saying their desire, which is based on their perception of facts, not facts themselves. I don't believe in "actual good" or "objective morality". Perceptions are reality

> Enacting useless policies only helps their reelection campaign.

Enacting policies with which the public agrees helps them. It's a pretty simple equation. Politicians do not exercise any great mind control any more than U/L. Each holds their own sway, but ultimately the public decides themselves how to interpret facts.

> Facts are everything, not nothing.

I don't mean to say facts are useless. I mean that people can interpret them differently. One man's trash is another's treasure, that sort of thing. Some people love U/L, others have no need for it. Recognizing differences in people can help you build products, companies, run for office, etc.

> And income is what lets a Lyft employee feed their family.

For sure. I have very little stake in this issue. No U/L stock and I don't live in Austin. I'm merely American. My interest is it's interesting to discuss. Whether or not Austin makes tax money or U/L make profit, and all the ramifications associated with employment etc. make little difference to me.

> The city is already making more in tax since Uber and Lyft went in - from every taxable good and service they consume, and as trickle-down from their drivers' spending, etc.

That's wonderful.

> But that doesn't show up on the balance sheets with a politician's name next to it so its worthless

Again I'd say that's short sighted. People do care when a business leaves a city. Parents recognize the value of tax money, which goes towards keeping them and their young ones safe and educated.

> its worthless to the people making these unreasonable demands

Calling them unreasonable demands is your opinion. Another way of phrasing this is you think more than 50% of active Austin voters are unreasonable. I'd say that attitude is unlikely to help you build a business there or get someone elected.

> An idea it got from city officials why scrambled for something to do, not something useful to do.

Whether a person thinks private vs. government background checks is more useful is subjective. People voted on this. If U/L feels private checks without fingerprints are just as good as government ones, then they should share more information on this through their website.

Complaining about the decision made by Austin voters does little to help U/L at this point, particularly to me, since I'm not even a resident. Perhaps you also just find it interesting to discuss. Cheers!

[EdHominem]

> Of course. My point was that city employees do suffer when you scoff at the law. They risk losing their jobs. Many roles are appointed by the elected administration.

The workers at the DMV don't suffer, the meter readers don't suffer, etc.

If anyone does, it's the politician whose stupid ideas and lies wasted everyone's time and money. And that's a feature.

> Enacting policies with which the public agrees helps them. It's a pretty simple equation. Politicians do not exercise any great mind control any more than U/L. Each holds their own sway, but ultimately the public decides themselves how to interpret facts.

Cough. They use your tax money to send propaganda to you, lying about the facts. They abuse the presumption that they're working for the public to push their own agenda.

Uber and Lyft have fact on their side. And if they lied, they'd risk someone going to jail.

> Whether or not Austin makes tax money or U/L make profit, and all the ramifications associated with employment etc. make little difference to me.

You just spent time explaining that tax money can be used to buy services. I knew that, but figured you might be saying it because you didn't see the other side of the equation where untaxed wages can also be used to buy things...

> Calling them unreasonable demands is your opinion.

Only if you water words down until they don't mean anything.

The city's demands are for useless measures to fix an issue that already doesn't impact anyone, and the proposition is one they make money from.

> Another way of phrasing this is you think more than 50% of active Austin voters are unreasonable. I'd say that attitude is unlikely to help you build a business there or get someone elected.

No, I think the politicians are lying which confounds the issue. The people trust them and many or all may be mislead but that's not the same as thinking that each and every voter themselves is unreasonable.

> Whether a person thinks private vs. government background checks is more useful is subjective.

That's not the issue, that's the overton-window version. Worthless checks are worthless, no matter who does them.

> If U/L feels private checks without fingerprints are just as good as government ones, then they should share more information on this through their website.

As you say, it's not about facts. Engaging on the wrong issues merely settles the discussion around those issues.

> Complaining about the decision made by Austin voters does little to help U/L at this point

I'm not complaining, I think it's exactly what the city deserves for duplicitousness. Sometimes walking away from crazy people is all you can do.