[s73v3r]

So, according to you, McDonald's should be free to break minimum wage law in order to lower their prices? That other companies should be allowed to violate safety regulations in order to provide cheaper prices?

The customer wanting something in no way, shape, or form justifies violating the law. And in this case, the customer is NOT told to absorb costs for services they don't want. They're simply told to pay the true cost of the service. If they don't want to, then they clearly did not value the service that much.

[ElComradio]

Two drivers approach you.

Driver A: "I'll get you there for $10. If I crash, you don't get to sue Uber, just me."

Driver B: "I'll get you there for $15. If I crash, you can go after Uber."

As the customer, do you believe I should have the right to choose between these two options? Or do you believe I should be forced to choose B every time?

[x0x0]

Yes, I think it's fine for you to be forced to choose B. Because when people get hurt, someone pays. And if uber doesn't pay, and the driver doesn't pay, society does. Hurt passengers would have their medical problems paid for by their insurance or by all of us through taxes.

In CA, you have to have insurance to drive a car. It would be cheaper for you not to have insurance, but most people don't have the money to make things right when they get into an accident. This is exactly analogous.

[ElComradio]

Nowhere in the example was the condition that the driver is not insured.

Outside of that, I find this attitude incredibly patronizing. "We need to save you from yourself" is what it boils down to. You pay somebody for a ride knowing she's not insured? That's _your_ problem, not mine.

[x0x0]

until you get hurt without insurance and we end up paying for you