[NitpickLawyer]

I struggle to see how the 3 examples go together. Your exposition implies a connection, but I struggle to see one. The best I could do is that it has to do with rights and responsibilities?

The first example is clear. And it has pretty much carried on, as the "right to property" and "the responsibility to cover damage to other's rights".

The second example, even though you wrote it as Uber vs. the cab driver, is more about Uber vs. the municipality. By the fact that almost all over the world people wanted Uber (or the other brands) over the imposed limitation of their municipalities, shows that the deal was wrong. In places where it was artificially limited, people have showed to prefer the alternatives. It has little to do with Bob the driver, and more to do with Alice the mayor who decided unilaterally that a taxi cab should require a 100k/yr medallion. That's what's changed, and society accepted it.

The third example is weirder still. Again you pose it as AI provider vs. average Joe, but here I struggle to even see what rights / who's rights are being infringed upon. I don't see any. While we generally have a right to work, there is absolutely no right to work in a certain industry, if the industry doesn't have demand. If someone else doesn't need your output, your right to work in that particular field has absolutely no basis in reality.

Unless you want to go back to the places and regimes that decided who works where, modern society has no place for such thinking. A right to work protects you from employers choosing not to hire you because of things that you are (race, age, gender, etc.) It absolutely doesn't protect you at all against "people don't need elevator operators anymore". And I say this as someone who's worked in this industry 20+ years. If tomorrow people don't need software done by hand anymore, tough luck for me. But it's absolutely not the problem of rights. I don't have a right to demand people wanting my services. That's not the social contract at all.

[KPGv2]

> over the imposed limitation of their municipalities

This was really just a few cities in the US. There's no artificial taxi scarcity in Houston or London or Tokyo.

You might reflexively say London has strict regulations, but it regulates safety not imposing an artificial cap. That's a NY/Boston/Chicago/Philly thing.

Uber won because:

1. on-demand app

2. VCs subsidized rides to destroy taxi companies by driving the customer cost to well below provider cost.

[steveBK123]

> 2. VCs subsidized rides to destroy taxi companies by driving the customer cost to well below provider cost.

Not sure about other regions but in NYC this is 100% the case. Ubers used to be nicer cleaner newer cars, better drivers.. for less than a taxi. Now they are about 4x what they cost in the 2010s, with cars about as dirty as a taxi and equally surly drivers.

[anjel]

1st example was the progenitor of what eveolved into strict liability. (If you make money putting stuff into the stream of commerce, you're liable for unintended and evenunforseeable downstream damages. 2nd example is an illustration of that longheld legal precedent's being curiously ignored (nevermind the cost savings was a bum rush and livery costs are now higher than before the innovative advent) 3rd is a call to at least litigate who bears the downstream effects. Or perhaps we should just cancel public health measures and employ pestilence to solve the problem *organically.*

[ahepp]

> If you make money putting stuff into the stream of commerce, you're liable for unintended and evenunforseeable downstream damages

So if you’re a business offering poor quality services, and I come along and start offering higher quality services, I owe you damages for the impact I have on your business?

[wahern]

Morally, maybe? It's what people tend to implicitly assume when a large chain displaces local mom & pops. You can argue it's for the greater good in the long-term, but that doesn't settle the question of the immediate injuries. Is it the fault of the stock boy who lost his job that he worked for a less efficient employer? Maybe?

The whole encyclical's argument is that morality requires an accounting and response to the pain inflicted upon each individual, and human morality is a distinct set of rules and norms than economic, physical, or even civil laws. I think it also follows that it's not just, e.g., Walmart or OpenAI who bares some responsibility for ameliorating temporary suffering. And to the extent people use the encyclical as fodder in the usual anti-corporate rhetoric, then that's unfortunate.

And this is coming from the Catholic church. It turns alot of people off who in isolated contexts often perceive hypocrisy, but in its charity it has always considered the personal responsibility of those receiving it. It understands the struggles and inherent tensions that comes from trying to square individualized justice & mercy, selflessness, and the "greater good".

[s1artibartfast]

you gravely understand #1 if you apply it in a blanket manner. You are not liable for all damages and consequences, only a vary narrow subclass.

[NitpickLawyer]

> you're liable for unintended and evenunforseeable downstream damages.

so the people vs. otis, the people vs. IBM608, and so on? Has it ever worked?

[kelnos]

No, the 2nd example has nothing to do with that. You're drawing a false equivalence.

[ses1984]

People especially wanted uber because uber charged below market rates by subsidizing rides with vc money.

[NitpickLawyer]

Maybe. But the fact that they're still in business shows that different people value different things. Be it rating schemes, payment alternatives, choosing their music, choosing their cars, one click hailing and so on. The people have spoken, the social contract has changed.

[KPGv2]

that's just goalpost shifting

The argument was "governments restricted taxi availability so Uber won" and now you've mott-and-bailied yourself down to "people want to pick music they listen to on the ride"

[basisword]

>> But the fact that they're still in business shows that different people value different things.

No it doesn't. It shows they could undercut the market, monopolise it, and then charge more once they'd killed the competition.

[solenoid0937]

Except NYC taxis and the taxi cartel is still trash compared to Ubers, despite Uber being out of its subsidization era.