[toomuchtodo]

> Child labor and police bribery are also "market forces at work".

You should be ashamed of yourself for comparing demand pricing for private transport to child labor and police bribery.

> Over the course of history we've learned that unfettered market forces can be destructive, and in order to maintain a civil society we regulate them.

Cheap, reliable, private transportation is not a right. Civil society is entitled to efficient, fairly priced mass transportation, not price controls for private transport.

> It may not be perfect, but clearly neither is the alternative if that alternative is the kind of opportunism advocated by Uber.

So don't user Uber then. Use a regular taxi (while they're still around). Walk. Own a bicycle or a membership to a bike share program. Or take mass transit.

End the entitlement complex.

[vannevar]

You should be ashamed of yourself...

And you should be ashamed of yourself for either missing my point or choosing mock outrage instead of thoughtful response.

Cheap, reliable, private transportation is not a right.

Neither is the operation of a gypsy taxi fleet.

Use a regular taxi (while they're still around).

And this is the crux of the issue. Both Uber and the taxi service use the same public infrastructure to operate. Streets, police, road repair, snow removal, the list goes on. Like it or not, Uber is inextricably bound up in public infrastructure and in an urban setting it is part of the public transportation system. If it cannibalizes the licensed taxi system to the point of extinction, then it will have effectively co-opted the system for the affluent, just as I said.

End the entitlement complex.

Let's start with the sense of entitlement that leads corporations like Uber to feel they have no social obligation, even though their shareholders and officers are relieved of personal liability for their actions as part of their (government-issued) corporate charter.

[toomuchtodo]

Uber is not a "gypsy" taxi fleet. They may not be sanctioned, but they're far from unregulated.

Your idea that they have a social obligation is incredulous. Would you prohibit me from ride sharing with someone privately? Of course not! Why does an app and the exchange of money make that different?

[vannevar]

Why does an app and the exchange of money make that different?

They don't. The introduction of a corporate mediator does. The idea that corporations, chartered by the government and relying heavily on public infrastructure to function, should have social obligations is simply common sense. Even individual property owners have always had social obligations with regard to the manner in which they use and maintain their property. Why do you believe corporations do not?

[toomuchtodo]

> Why do you believe corporations do not?

Because if the social obligation isn't codified into law, it doesn't exist. "Morality" does not equal legal obligation.

[vannevar]

The question we're arguing here is whether such an obligation should be codified. You felt it was 'incredulous' to believe that a corporation should have social obligations. I'm wondering why you think such an idea is so outlandish, given that the entire concept of a corporation is to allow people to profit without liability in return for benefitting society.