[Jabanga]

>When the choices you make with respect to the use of your property cause harm to other people or their property,

Offering something on the market, that other consenting adults voluntarily choose to buy, does not violate anyone's rights. Competitors do not have a right to dictate how consumers spend their money, so being out competed is not a violation of their rights.

What you're advocating is a blatant violation of their rights based on a belief that people are entitled to other people's private property.

[ubernostrum]

If you and I each own property along a river, and I run a factory and you run a farm, and I dump waste into the river that poisons your crops and livestock, that's just me exercising my absolute right to my own property, yes? And anything you do to try to stop or punish me is you feeling entitled to my private property, yes?

[Jabanga]

Dumping waste is not a voluntary interaction. It's a violation of someone else's private property. This has no resemblance to Uber out competing local taxis.

At least learn the basis of free market ideology before criticizing it.

[PatentTroll]

Ok, so taxis. If it is going to be a voluntary transaction, I need to know 1) the drivers background check to make sure he isn't a murderer or rapist, 2) has a clean driving record, 3) has a license, 4) carries insurance that covers me while I'm in his car, 5) is driving a safe vehicle, 6) and what the ride costs. Do you really expect each taxi passenger to sort out all of that info for each and every ride!? Wouldn't it be easier for everyone to get together to set some standards and put some folks in charge of enforcing those standards so that you can just hop in a cab and reasonably expect not to die? Doesn't that sound reasonable? Well that's all the regulation is. If you want to argue about NYC medallions and regulatory capture, you're not wrong. That shit should be figured out. By involvement in government, voting, and citizen action. What you're really mad about is the perceived inflexibility and ineffective nature of that process. But you're also the same kind of free market numbskull who supports unfettered capitalism and campaign donations, which is how a special interest strangles a government body like a taxi cab commission.

[Jabanga]

>Do you really expect each taxi passenger to sort out all of that info for each and every ride!?

There can be certification.. A certifying body certifies that a taxi driver meets all of the conditions you mentioned and issues certificates to those drivers who do. There can be more than one certification standard, and consumers would be free to choose which certifying standard they trust, or even choose to use a driver with no certifications.

I'm not sure why such a world is so scary for you.

>But you're also the same kind of free market numbskull who supports unfettered capitalism and campaign donations, which is how a special interest strangles a government body like a taxi cab commission.

That's not a very nice or constructive comment. Where I live, Uber is banned, and taxi service is heavily regulated. The taxi drivers are the most dangerous drivers on the roads. Please give me free market competition that results in the high quality service you see from Uber.

[PatentTroll]

Dude, that's exactly what taxi commissions are! They certify that taxis conform to some basic standards. I'm not trying to be nice to you because the ideas you are espousing are corrosive and dangerous. I oppose your false ideology completely.

[Jabanga]

I recommend you read up the definition of 'certification '. A certification is not mandatory. You're free to operate and offer your services in the market without it. What you're describing is a license, which is required by law to have. It's not voluntary. This is an incredibly important distinction that you're completely ignoring.

You're calling my ideas "corrosive and dangerous" and claiming I have a "false ideology" and yet you don't understand the essence of my point or the arguments I'm raising (e.g. you fail to grasp the distinction between a voluntary certification and a mandate license, which is at the heart of my argument).

[sooheon]

It is not a voluntary interaction between property owners. It is a voluntary interaction between the factory owner and his customers, who are the paying parties and therefore the only entities of any consequence on the free market. It's called an externality for a reason, being that the free market cannot account for it.

[ubernostrum]

Ah, so you would restrict my enjoyment of my own private property. How entitled and paternalistic of you!