[bluecalm]

The problem is that minority can organize a street protest to protect its interest at the cost of interest of general public who is not that motivated to take it to the street on what is one of many (and often not in the category of the most important ones) issues for them.

One example is Uber. Everyone I know who uses it loves it, it's cheaper, more reliable, the service is better as well. Despite all of it there are protests because it hurts one group (taxi drivers) a lot. It really is a problem when special interest group can force their way at the cost of the public just because they are louder and organized enough to take the matter to the streets.

[alphonsegaston]

It really is a problem when special interest group can force their way at the cost of the public just because they are louder and organized enough to take the matter to the streets

Arguably, this is Uber's business model. Circumventing the public by ignoring their laws (some terrible ones that prevent competition, but others that do things like ensure transportation access for disabled people), and then worming their way out of it by buying politicians, intimidating journalists, and with slick marketing campaigns.

On the balance, I find it hard to believe that a street protest is more threatening to the outcome of trade negotiations than the wealth, organization, and political influence of corporations seeking sweetheart deals.

[knabacks]

No offense, but in the case of uber it is alot more to it.

just one example:

In many european countries a driver needs a special insurance for human transportation. In case of an accident this insurance goes into effect, not having this is really bad for all people involved.

In case of ttip:

In europe we got high standards and good laws to protect people(consumers, workers, ...). Dont blame me for this, but this is not the case for the usa.

[damptowel]

> because it hurts one group (taxi drivers) a lot

That's true, but I think that's only part of the problem. I always interpreted it as a precedent to circumvent existing regulation* in a demand-constrained market.

The market for on-demand-personal-transport-by-car doesn't necessarily equate to taxi companies (it USED to be, pre-disruptive-tech) and in that way it's a competitive advantage to Uber, because it does not (or did not) need to conform to that regulatory context. Had Uber been a taxi startup that launched the app there would be no such problem, though it's unlikely they would have been successful. It's true that taxi companies might try to influence regulation to their benefit and perhaps the Uber model is simply more suited to today's world. But I think it's wrong to state that taxi drivers are simply some small minority trying to stifle innovation because it benefits them, there's more fundamental issues at work in this case. And as a somewhat ambiguous precedent you can see politicians flailing with the idea, not having a ready made response. Uber was not outlawed simply because of taxi drivers.

* I'm blindly assuming that's the case in most countries.