Uber Now Blocked All Over Germany 312
An anonymous reader writes Following the blocking of Uber in Berlin, DE, the district court of Frankfurt/Main has issued a restraining order for Uber services all over Germany (German original). The district court is alleging "uncompetitive behavior" (Unlauteres Wettbewerbsverhalten) on Uber's part, and has proclaimed that not following the restraining order will result in a fine of €250.000 or imprisonment. This ruling is related to the German "Personenbeförderungsgesetz" and is outlining that no legal entity (person, enterprise) is allowed to transfer passengers without having passed the relevant tests and having the appropriate insurance coverage.
Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal (Score:2)
And while it conflicts with ideals I consider higher, proportionality and due process, I can't not be amused at the irony of attempting to corner a market resulting your outright exclusion from it.
fact check first (Score:2)
Even if the term actually meant "anti-competitive behavior", it would be accurate roughly in the sense that the "Ministry of Truth" has to do with truth and the "Ministry of Peace" has to do with peace.
Of course, the term "unlauterer Wettbewerb" doesn't even mean "anti-competitive behavior", it means something like "indecent competition" or "immoral competition". The best translation is probably "unfair competition", although that doesn't quite capture the emotional force of the term in German. Usually, com
Re: (Score:2)
Keine eier!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal (Score:4, Insightful)
"suddenly there is unfair competition?"
It's not the app. Yes, you can drive people around the city in your car, but once you start charging them to take them somewhere, you are operating a taxi service.
Either we overregulate these services and all taxi companies should be able to operate in an unregulated manner, or we have sufficient regulation and therefore Uber must play by the rules. But the status quo is certainly neither fair nor sustainable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're called regulations, and many of them are in place for good reason, such as public safety. In society, we all have to play by the same rules.
Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal (Score:4, Insightful)
Many regulations are in place to assure safety and the public good. However, all too often, the regulated get control of the regulatory agencies ("regulatory capture") and then regulations are created to preserve the incumbents dominant market position and/or business model.
Re: (Score:2)
There USED to be a good reason for many of them. Then they started being used to cull competition, raise prices and barriers to entry for no other reason than to make more money. This is why Taxi Medallions in certain cities are worth MILLIONS.
And from my experience, all the rules that supposedly are for "safety" and such, are more or less used a clubs and sledgehammers on competition, and doesn't actually apply to safety any longer. Technology has improved cars and safety to the point where much of those r
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see the problem here.
The problem is that in Germany we generally (there are exceptions) don't like to let people die out i the streets because they made a stupid decision. These uninsured health bills will still get paid, by taxes.
Insurance and a 1099 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why stop at Taxi services? Some might want to take it a step further and eliminate all business licenses or fees, and minimize regulation of them.
Re:Insurance and a 1099 (Score:4, Insightful)
I think its a case of German law makers thinking: If it looks like a taxi, and acts like a taxi, then it should be regulated like a taxi. Can't really fault them on this.
The bigger issue is that Uber, Lyft, etc. are trying to take advantage of the lag between what is available (Hail a taxi via an app), and what the current incumbent do now, by bypassing the current laws. This is admirable from a competition perspective, but not by sacrificing all laws to get there and compete.
Uber is notorious at this point for operating full steam ahead, against regulation, and even court rulings, to get into place. I am not surprised Germany took a dim view of their antics and slapped them.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-playbook-for-sabotaging-lyft [theverge.com]
Some regulations are in place to protect drivers, others are in place to protect passengers. To declare yourself immune to them all is lovely, but its as effective as me declaring myself King of the Internet and demanding all my subjects to send me $5.
Adding "with the help of a mobile app" to the end of your business plan, does not suddenly make a brand new industry and to pretend otherwise is delusional (except to shareholders or venture capitalists).
Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, attacking government revenue streams is not exactly anti competative though. But this is the world we live in. This is such a hard thing to explain to the layperson.
You realize are real costs involved Uber isn't paying? Taxis are commercial services and part of their fees are used to maintain roads and public facilities they use more heavily than private drivers. They are also required to provide equal access and maintain a certain percentage of handicap accessible vehicles available at all times. They also have to carry the proper insurance because if they skirted the law on this point, the rest of us would end up paying.
And that's about what's happening with Uber and Lyft. We will end up paying the costs they are ignoring. To make matters worse, those costs will be spread out over everyone even those most will never use these services. As it's a semi-elite market, that translate to those who can least afford it will subsidize cheaper rides for those who can and we'll all pay added tax dollars essentially straight into the pockets of Uber's founders. I can't blame Germany for being smart and making them follow the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC the last taxi medallion that was openly sold in NYC went for north of $500K. Hardly a miniscule fee.
If there were only 10,000 programmer medallions available in the USA, would you stop coding?
Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal (Score:4, Informative)
The NYC medallions are transferable property, so the fee for the medallion doesn't go to the city, it goes to the seller.
To be fair (you're responding to my post), in San Francisco the permit sticker (equivalent to NYC medallion) is non-transferable, so you're paying ~$150,000 to the city. But it's not a real source of income to the city, because they city rarely issues new ones, and turn-over is low. Usually what happens is 3 or 4 guys put up the money together, and also some banks will issue business loans to acquire the permit.
So, again, the whole point of the monopoly is to benefit taxi drivers. It's definitely not a taxation scam by the city or state; not in any way, shape, or form. You can research the history yourself. IIRC it started in either NYC or maybe Chicago, because prior to these schemes everybody with four wheels and an engine would pretend to be a taxi. It didn't provide a stable income, which meant there were serious quality and consistency issues.
I'm just pointing out the facts in the hopes of pointing out some cognitive dissonance here. I don't personally have any strong opinions wrt Uber. Times have changed, and it would be wrong to simple argue that without these regulations we would necessarily revert to the bad old times. But you can't simply ignore their function, either. And that doesn't even get into the whole insurance issue.
Uber, Lyft, etc drivers absolutely-fscking-lutely should be properly insured, often times they're not, and that's just plain wrong.
Apparently regulation is "socialist" (Score:5, Insightful)
This applies for all taxicab companies, no matter their size. What Uber is doing is to make an end-run around those laws by offering taxicab rides from drivers who *don't* meet those requirements. Makes it easy to undercut people who do abide by the law eh? Sounds like unfair competition to me.
So how the hell is enforcing such laws "Socialist"?
And whoever decided this Anonymous Coward's drive-by comment qualifies as "insightful"?
Re: (Score:3)
Considering the "competitive" practices Uber has been using in the USA ( http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-playbook-for-sabotaging-lyft [theverge.com] ), I feel compelled to partake of another German word: schadenfreude
Re: Apparently regulation is "socialist" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but what France is saying and Germany are saying are two totally different things.
France by default has idiotic protectionist schemes. Germany on the other hand has in this case common sense schemes like the GP post is saying.
I am for free competition, and free market. However, I am NOT for skirting regulations because you think you found a loophole. Imagine if everybody did that? While some things would be good, many other things would not be good at all. Or are you for lead in your toothpaste?
Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
In Europe trying to refute an action by calling it socialist doesn't work.
Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
The dirty tricks you listed all take the same form: excluding people from the market. If you believe that we all have a fundamental right to buy and sell and provide services and otherwise participate in commerce, then the only discussion is how best to approach that ideal. Laws that grant monopolies or create significant barriers to entry are wholly bad under that lens.
Of course there's a tension there between that freedom and a different set of dirty tricks: fraud and unsafe products. There's very little dissent, outside of the extreme corners of libertarianism, that regulations to insure some sort of minimum quality/safety are good in principle. But it's quite odd how, whenever someone suggests that the market is unduly restricted by heavy-handed government monopoly granting, the speaker is accused of wanting to destroy safety regulations.
If you want a market where it's easy for anyone to participate, you want both minimum-possible government barriers to entry and a significant government role in fraud prevention and safety. It's not a "more vs less government" argument at all, really. That's just a distraction. The real question is "given that we need some government role in product safety and fraud prevention, how do we prevent that grant of power to the government from being twisted and corrupted into monopoly-granting?"
Misleading (Score:2, Informative)
There is no "ruling", there is a preliminary injunction -- the court hasn't ruled anything. Also, this injunction only affects the "Uber Pop" service, which is only one of the services Uber offers in Germany.
Good... (Score:5, Insightful)
You want to play in our market? Play by our rules. Don't claim that your 'innovative new paradigm' renders those rules obselete and ignore them.
Where we're going, we don't need rules... (Score:2)
I'm not so sure that's right. I'm certainly not equating the two here, but certainly there's a comparison to be made with e.g. Time4Popcorn.
Time4Popcorn effectively aims to play in the market of non-interactive entertainment delivery (films and TV series, mostly), but its developers - and certainly its users - have no interest in wanting to play by the existing rules (i.e. having to license the content at great cost, and only after spending weeks if not months of being unable to license it at all).
I don't
Re: (Score:2)
I see Uber and the like as being in the same vein - and while Germany, London, whatever ends up 'banning' these services, I'm sure they realize that it's not going to stop then and there, and the rules will eventually have to be adjusted.
And once the rules have been adjusted Uber is free to do business according to those rules.
But TODAY they have to do business according to TODAYS rules. If they think the rules are outdated, they should work on changing them. But until then they have to follow them.
bad translation (Score:5, Informative)
The term "Unlauteres Wettbewerbsverhalten" does not mean "uncompetitive behavior"; it means "competition that violates good taste" or "competition that violates moral standards". A better translation might be "unfair competition".
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Though a more accurate translation might be "Hey, where's my cut?"
Fuck these stupid morons (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Riiight. You're forgetting one thing: The insurance companies.
As soon as you have been in an accident while driving for Uber, your insurance company WILL drop your contract AND sue you - because the standard insurance contract is not intended for transportation services.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they state that they're using their car for private needs and then go on to use it in a business setting - certainly.
Over here, you insure the car instead of the driver and you also have to tell the insurance company what you're using the car for. Lying to insurance companies was always a bad idea, y'know?
This can get expensive for Uber fast (Score:2)
The linked article lacks one important detail: The fine of up to 250,000€ is for each instance of breaking the injunction.
Sure, the first violation may only cost 2,000€. But that will go up for every violation. And you can bet your ass that the competitors will use the apps to check on Uber. And they will report any violation they find.
tests and coverage? (Score:2)
the relevant tests and having the appropriate insurance coverage
While I've never used Uber/Lyft, I'm hoping some of you have and can shed some light on it.
Have any of you actually asked for proof of insurance or a valid registration before getting into the car? Does Uber/Lyft do any checking to make sure that stuff hasn't expired?
One other question: If I'm getting a ride via Uber and we get in an accident, and I get hurt, regardless of who's fault it is, do I go after the Uber driver, Uber company or do I have to file my insurance claims against the other driver? I wo
Re: (Score:2)
I have never used Uber, but I suspect that in an accident situation you start with the person driving the car you were in, regardless of who is at-fault, then let the insurance companies sort it all out. Your driver could be is a heap of trouble if they are involved in an at-fault accident while driving for one of these services, and it is found that they do not have a policy that covers for-hire services (most home/auto policies don't). You as the passenger could be left cover your own costs, since the d
This is good news (Score:2)
Software Analogies (Score:2)
I wonder how many of those who are up in arms about letting services like Uber and Lyft market their services would allow commercial hardware and software companies to make changes to GPL licensed software without attribution or sharing their modified source code?
Or should Apple support my home built PC if I put OS X on it? If I paid for the OS, the vendor should support that, right? Why should I pay extra for their hardware...it's no different, right?
To me, it's simple - if you want to market your services
ohh... well no wonder (Score:2)
"Public sentiment toward the company turned abruptly negative after the unveiling of its phone app, which responds to car reservation requests by announcing, 'Die UberMenchen are coming to pick you up!,' and asking the customer to don a distinctive badge, so that they can be identified."
This raises an interesting problem for Germans... (Score:2)
Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles
uber alles in der Welt.
Now try singing it after blocking Uber...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do it for any reason other than being "uncompetitive". What the heck is so "uncompetitive"?
It takes money from the taxi monopoly and the state doesn't get their cut of fees, taxes and licensing money. Can't have that so it must be uncompetitive.
Re: (Score:2)
Then haul their asses to court for fraud (hoax bookings) and the other real crimes they've committed, if they've committed any. But these problems have nothing to do with Uber's business model.
Re:Uncompetitive? (Score:4, Informative)
This is pretty much what 'unlauterer Wettbewerb' means:
Fighting competition through illegal means, or gaining unfair advantage by not following the rules of the business.
And it was decided by a court.
So there.. exactly what you wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, good -- but this shouldn't extend to banning Uber or services like it.
Re: (Score:2)
If they don't follow the laws that other companies in this business have to follow -- of course it should extend that far.
The fact that Uber explicitly says that they are going to ignore this court decision speaks volumes.
Re: (Score:2)
So, in other words, any law is a good law, even if it exists for the protection of a cartel?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that's fraud, and should be treated as such.
I suppose victims of a DNS should just suck it up?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The drivers carry no taxi medallions, pass no certification or training, do not carry appropriate insurance and Uber has already been found to be engaged in anti-competitive practices by having their users order bogus rides on competing services and canceling them after the driver is en route, increasing the wait time and preventing the drivers from getting fares.
Fuck Uber, they are slime balls and give the peer economy a bad rap.
We are all better off without their ilk.
Re:Uncompetitive? (Score:5, Informative)
- no insurance in case of accidents (insurance for person transport costs about 10x what a normal car owner pays for his car alone) ...shall I continue?
- no rigorous technical car checks as they are required for cabs
- no transport obligation (a cab here HAS to transport you, even if you just want to go around the corner)
- no reliable costs (cabs here cost the same all the time, no matter whether it's an early morning in march or New Year's eve)
- no proper filing of taxes
- no right for the drivers to form a workers council, therefore dumping payment is to be expected
- no health insurance, no social insurance, no pension payments for the drivers
(it might be, that some of these points don't apply to US cabs as well, here they don't)
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a large US city (the District of Columbia) with both a conventional regulated taxi service and Uber/Lyft.
Let me look at your points one at a time:
--Insurance: The auto insurance market is developing insurance policies for these sorts of drivers. In any case, I imagine that the average Uber driver is a better driver than I am (it's her job, and just a means of transport for me); when I accept a ride from a driver, I know she might wreck and hurt me. If she does, her personal liability insurance (wh
Re: (Score:2)
- no insurance in case of accidents (insurance for person transport costs about 10x what a normal car owner pays for his car alone)
Actually, they have insurance [uber.com], either commercial insurance held by the driver or a primary $1M liability and $1M uninsured motorist bodily injury policy provided by Uber itself.
- no rigorous technical car checks as they are required for cabs
They're as checked-out as any other car, i.e. the state puts them through a 2 year safety inspection on re-registration. My state doesn't do that; as I drive, I am faced with other drivers whose brakes or steering may spontaneously fail, causing them to veer into my car. The risk of me personally driving is roughly similar to th
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they have insurance [uber.com], either commercial insurance held by the driver or a primary $1M liability and $1M uninsured motorist bodily injury policy provided by Uber itself.
"In The US, What Insurance Is Available If There's An Accident? [...]"
That's nice, but irrelevant in Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well a lot of these countries have rules that are made to prevent US companies from gaining traction there. Sure they hide it in terms of safety or something else the normal electorate can swallow but if you look at the details of the laws it is in essence an FU America law.
Re:ITT... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's more "FU people who think profit uber alles is the right way to do business" laws. That you identify that as uniquely American is pretty telling.
Re:ITT... (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about protectionism.
This is about countries having laws and expecting everybody to follow them.
Sure, US companies are not used to do that, but that is a problem of the US, not of the other countries.
Germany has laws regulating persons and companies that want to be active in the transport business. These laws where not made to keep US companies out. The laws are a lot older than Uber. They are there to protect consumers and give them a certain amount of safety.
Ubers profits are not more important than everybodies safety.
Re: (Score:2)
Why cant it be both?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:ITT... (Score:5, Insightful)
How so?
The rules in question here are questions of insurance, of proper training for drivers, of car maintenance... the same rules that cab drivers and companies in Germany have been following for many years.
How are these rules 'made to prevent US companies from gaining traction'?
Unless of course, having local law that everybody (local companies as well as US companies) have to follow is preventing US companies in your eyes. I mean, sure, they are not used to actually having to follow laws they don't like. It's real mean of European governments and regulators to actually check whether companies follow the law...
Re: (Score:3)
+1 Informative
The hype around Uber and the low prices is based on not paying for proper insurance, permits, qualifications or ensuring the maintenance of the cars. It's unfair competition by undermining businesses by purposely ignoring laws passed by the democratic will of the people.
It's called "anti-competitive dumping" and its purpose is to drive lawful services out of the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ITT... (Score:4, Informative)
Uber is really two different service providers. There's "Uber Black" that provides usually very nice black car services with professional drivers at 20-40% higher rates than a taxi - I love this personally and use it a ton when I travel. Then there's UberX which tries to do the same with random individuals who own a car for 20-40% lower rates than a taxi. These two services have almost nothing to do with each other, and its the second one that everyone basically has a problem with.
Re: (Score:2)
These permits, insurances ect. are there to protect the customers of the taxi service.
If a Uber driver causes an accident, what will happen?
His private car insurance will not cover any damages he incurred while driving his car for profit, and it's very unlikely that he has the kind of money to pay damages for injuries out of his pocket.
Re: (Score:3)
If you look at the details of this laws you will realize, no one even knew about the unitied states when those laws where crafted. ... so we do actually know that that country exists. For you guys europe was long a myth, turning reality in WW I and more so in WW II and now you believe it is your 53rd state of the union. Hint: it is not.
You just where a backyard country 6000km ( cough cough 4000 miles) away over the atlantic ocean.
Granted, some of our grand parents brothers and sisters emigrated to there
Many
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious - what do we believe are the 51st and 52nd States?
As to the Germans not knowing about the USA when those laws were written, at the time you think you're talking about, the USA was a "continent spanning nation, and to us, all the domains of the Hapsburgs are but a small thing"....
Re: (Score:2)
51th Puerto Ricco (sp?) 52th Grenada or what ever actually is on your agenda.
Your continent wide 'empire' nevertheless had less humans than the 'Harbsburger domains' but nice that you know the name.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think Russia is irritated with current sanctions. Just wait until we ship the Germans 10,000 metric tons of pig iron and 1 metric ton of weapons grade.
Putin would piss himself in public.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, its obvioue that laws regulating taxi services in Gemany have been in fact thought out to block business of american companies. And obviously, New York managed admirably to achive the same goal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the continent, the thousand separator is typically the full stop instead of the comma, so the actual fine amount would be €250k (and not €250).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What? Ignoring your confusion re . vs ,
They are called 'significant digits'. Extra 0s past the decimal can be very expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting enough, Germany DOES have services for people hitching long distance rides:
http://www.mitfahrzentrale.de/... [mitfahrzentrale.de]
http://www.mitfahrgelegenheit.... [mitfahrgelegenheit.de]
So it will be interesting to see how the courts explain how these services are different.
"Ve haf vays, of making you valk!"
Re: (Score:2)
Walk where? Er, valk vere I mean?
Re:Good. How is uber any different... (Score:5, Informative)
It's a grey area and the companies you link already have had some problems. However, the companies themselves already link the limits on their sites themselves:
Re:Good. How is uber any different... (Score:4, Informative)
So it will be interesting to see how the courts explain how these services are different.
The decision explicitely mentions the fact that Uber and the drivers are doing it for profit.
The Mitfahrzentralen work on a no profit basis, and the drivers don't make a profit either and would drive that way anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Erm, what exactly is to see or interesting to see there?
'Mitfahrgelegenheiten' allow it that a person who is traveling from A to B picks up another person that wants to go to B, and shares the fuel costs.
Uber is a commercial service where one person says it wants to go from A to B and another 'semi private' person agrees 'I have nothing better to do' and I can 'lift him for fuel payment and an extra payment(which I will share with Uber, my employer, cough cough).
And no once for ever, get it finally: we are
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know why this is? Because we value Liberty, fiercely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, your liberty was what O J Simpson got away with murder. ...
Or what the Furguson cop will get away with or what the cop who killed a cyclist while reading emails get away with
So what exactly has liberty to do with codified law versus court law? Nothing, except that in your law system stupid, corrupt, incompetent (or however the actual situation is) jury members can easily convict an innocent one or let a guilty one get away. Not to even mention if thete is a prosecution at all?
The price for your libert
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I actually don't understand how Uber started operating in the first place. In Germany, before you start operating a business, it needs to be registered (Gewerbe anmelden). Did Uber say that they were running a taxi service? Or did they fudge it as something else? If it was clear that they were running a taxi service, they would have been informed that they would have to follow the regulations for taxi services. Or did Uber just ignore this?
Usually when a company opens up business in a foreign co
Re: (Score:2)
I'm willing to bet that compared to traditional taxi customers, far more Uber customers would have smartphones with GPS in hand, meaning a much higher risk of being caught by police. You would have better odds painting your car, masquerading as a traditional taxi, and picking out old people to rob.
Re: (Score:2)
most "licensing" schemes are in place to protect the taxi driver
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for one, Uber has about 10 times as much insurance coverage as a taxi--a million dollars, instead of $25,000 to $100,000. Slugging and hitching have Guest PIP at $5000.
Uber also has traceability. Every Uber charter has passenger, driver, and time centrally logged. Passengers can comment on drivers, and drivers can comment on passengers. There's a rating system. A rapist will expose themselves to a hard evidence chain establishing where they were and that they were with the accuser, as well as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tried the new Uber Buggy Whip service. I was picked up by my ride - and by "picked up", I mean harnessed to the front of a carriage and then whipped until I pulled the carriage where I wanted to go.
Cons: The whipping hurt and the carriage was heavy.
Pros: I lost 5 pounds and the bag of oats they strapped to my mouth were tasty.
Rating: 3 1/2 stars. Might use again to help shed those holiday pounds.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't give a damn about the law, why would they give a damn about a court order. Fucking cowboys.
germans love cowboys. seriously, they're totally nuts over all native American/wild west culture stuff. I don't know why.
Re: (Score:2)
Because of the stories of "Karl May".
Re: (Score:2)
'relevant tests', 'approriate insurance'
Sure every driver has that for the purpose of driving oneself or friends and relatives.
But once you want to drive people for profit you have to follow stricter rules, pass more tests and have more insurance.
Cab drivers have to do that, so why shouldn't Uber do the same?
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone has passed that, its called a "Drivers license" unless they just hand them out at the age of whatever in Germany. lol
To obtain a commercial driver's licence in Germany, the first thing you need is a standard EU driver's license, which are not passed out like candy at a fireman's picnic.
You will need to know the law and demonstrate competence in handling your class of vehicle.
You will be run through a seres of no-nonsense medical and psychiatric evaluations. You will need a damn near perfect drving record and no criminal record.
The big city taxi driver must also have "The Knowledge" - a deep understanding of routes, traf
Re: (Score:2)
Also, insurance may not cover you if you're carrying passengers for-profit (though it could be difficult for them to find that out).
How so?
'Hey, I'm sorry that you just got injured while being in my car, but could you please not mention that you booked me on Uber to anybody, like the police, because I'm not covered for this case?'
Yeah, right. That will work out just fine...
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's not. Trade exists only where property exists. Property exists only where a state exists -- "ownership" is exactly and only the ability to call on state force to maintain your control of something. Trace any claim of "property" back and you find a state-issued piece of paper, a land or resource deed.
Used properly, property and trade are ways that
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
People should be free to trade with whoever they want, when they want, without the need to get permission from some higher authority
I agree. However if you chose to trade in a specific currency, then there's a lot that comes with it. Also, I'd rather my neighbors not spend their time trading crack-cocain for rims at will.
Whatever happened to the Enlightenment?
Enlightenment is still around, as much as ever. Though, not much of that goes on here on slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's because society has spent centuries observing how immoral individuals use lack of regulation to rape, pillage and torment those less capable of defending themselves, whether it be via trade, relationships or employment, and has decided as a group to regulate those areas to protect those incapable of protecting themselves.
Yes, some regulations go too far, and others don't go far enough, and a lot are outdated because society evolves too fast. But it is needed, and changes are needed too.
If German soci