Innovation sometimes disrupts particularly unhealthy market set ups like monopolies.
Uber and Lyft are a product of an innovative entrepreneurial spirit. It shouldn't have to be threatened by officials to survive. If it were to fail, especially by design, its impact and the consequences would be catastrophic to future entrepreneurial minds and ideas.
Taxis are an antiquated service protected by the government by limiting competition.
Uber came in and exploded this game board and consumers can but benefit from this.
Taxi drivers who invested several hundred thousand dollars in order to be honored with a permit bestowed by the state should really be directing their anger at the government for fostering such an environment; unless the Taxi cartel had a hand in creating this monstrosity. Then they no one else to blame but their own stupidity.
Offering a service at competitive prices is what should determine whether Uber and Lyft survive. Not unholy political machinations using coercive power to protect one group against another.
Before you question Uber's tactics, remember. It could happen to you should you have a great idea. Because a great idea always threatens entrenched interests.
***
But we've always had an uneasy relationship with entrepreneurs and business as a whole. The progressive cries of a 'rigged system' and 'pay your fair share' and 'equal playing fields' stretch back to Roman times. Which hastened the fall of Rome which at one point operated pretty much like Western nations during its classical liberal apex.
Once the money rolls in, it's time to redistribute and when you start down that path, everyone feels entitles to someone's splits.
The other day I was watching 'Wayward Pines'. The sci-fi drama story of a town given to dictatorial governance in order to protect the human species threatened by 'Abbies'. It's a fun show.
During one episode a character was explaining what their vision was for the town and why he selected teachers, doctors, police officers and farmers. These noble professionals and civil servants were depicted in nothing but a positive light and key cornerstones of civilization.
Of course, great civilizations throughout history have existed and operated without such a criteria.
It was a curious passage and one I can't help notice structured into television and film culture.
But notice the absence of entrepreneurs. Notice the omission of the one class who provide the willingness to risk to innovate that spurn growth and jobs.
Alas, to keep in line with the progressive dogma (sometimes I wonder if it's even done wittingly. I think we're just conditioned to assume this is how it is) that it's all driven by greed looking to rape and enslave people.
It's a shallow if not ignorant view but a powerful one.
The more intelligent progressives understand it but they're the ones who insist on regulations to ensure a 'fairer playing for all'.
Of course, the idea of an enlightened society driven and governed by yeoman and civil servant dedication is a romantic one as it is wrong headed and just assumes they can't be corrupted or inept.
One man's utopia is another man's dystopia.
If we can't accept and indeed protect the idea of needing innovative ideas be propelled into action, then we're asking for trouble and have no business wondering 'wha happened'? There should be no interference nor should be beg for permission to enter voluntary exchanges for goods and services provided except to ask 'how can we facilitate or protect' your experience? And a little humility into understanding who pays their salaries and pensions can be helpful to the process.
Too often I hear of bureaucrats talk as if they're the beginning of time and essence.
No, they are not. Bureaucrats have no business determining who and what gets to live. That's called a dictatorship by other means. Besides, they don't know a quarter of what they purport to know.
In Wayward Pines, everyone is assigned a 'duty'. So if you're told to make toys, you make toys even if you don't want to.
Sound familiar?
Feudalistic and communistic, no?
The way the planners of the town are behaving - though understandable - we see how a police state must eventually collapse since it runs contrary to the human spirit. You can't keep people down and clueless for too long.
Our hunger for knowledge and freedom is just too great and eventually hits political masters like a tsunami.
The trick, I guess, is less on how to control our actions but rather how to harness and treat with care this cherished and beautiful aspect of human nature.
No one likes to be told what to do and when forced to do so, well, I suppose just sealed is the fate of the community to which we're a part of: Doom.
Uber and Lyft are a product of an innovative entrepreneurial spirit. It shouldn't have to be threatened by officials to survive. If it were to fail, especially by design, its impact and the consequences would be catastrophic to future entrepreneurial minds and ideas.
Taxis are an antiquated service protected by the government by limiting competition.
Uber came in and exploded this game board and consumers can but benefit from this.
Taxi drivers who invested several hundred thousand dollars in order to be honored with a permit bestowed by the state should really be directing their anger at the government for fostering such an environment; unless the Taxi cartel had a hand in creating this monstrosity. Then they no one else to blame but their own stupidity.
Offering a service at competitive prices is what should determine whether Uber and Lyft survive. Not unholy political machinations using coercive power to protect one group against another.
Before you question Uber's tactics, remember. It could happen to you should you have a great idea. Because a great idea always threatens entrenched interests.
***
But we've always had an uneasy relationship with entrepreneurs and business as a whole. The progressive cries of a 'rigged system' and 'pay your fair share' and 'equal playing fields' stretch back to Roman times. Which hastened the fall of Rome which at one point operated pretty much like Western nations during its classical liberal apex.
Once the money rolls in, it's time to redistribute and when you start down that path, everyone feels entitles to someone's splits.
The other day I was watching 'Wayward Pines'. The sci-fi drama story of a town given to dictatorial governance in order to protect the human species threatened by 'Abbies'. It's a fun show.
During one episode a character was explaining what their vision was for the town and why he selected teachers, doctors, police officers and farmers. These noble professionals and civil servants were depicted in nothing but a positive light and key cornerstones of civilization.
Of course, great civilizations throughout history have existed and operated without such a criteria.
It was a curious passage and one I can't help notice structured into television and film culture.
But notice the absence of entrepreneurs. Notice the omission of the one class who provide the willingness to risk to innovate that spurn growth and jobs.
Alas, to keep in line with the progressive dogma (sometimes I wonder if it's even done wittingly. I think we're just conditioned to assume this is how it is) that it's all driven by greed looking to rape and enslave people.
It's a shallow if not ignorant view but a powerful one.
The more intelligent progressives understand it but they're the ones who insist on regulations to ensure a 'fairer playing for all'.
Of course, the idea of an enlightened society driven and governed by yeoman and civil servant dedication is a romantic one as it is wrong headed and just assumes they can't be corrupted or inept.
One man's utopia is another man's dystopia.
If we can't accept and indeed protect the idea of needing innovative ideas be propelled into action, then we're asking for trouble and have no business wondering 'wha happened'? There should be no interference nor should be beg for permission to enter voluntary exchanges for goods and services provided except to ask 'how can we facilitate or protect' your experience? And a little humility into understanding who pays their salaries and pensions can be helpful to the process.
Too often I hear of bureaucrats talk as if they're the beginning of time and essence.
No, they are not. Bureaucrats have no business determining who and what gets to live. That's called a dictatorship by other means. Besides, they don't know a quarter of what they purport to know.
In Wayward Pines, everyone is assigned a 'duty'. So if you're told to make toys, you make toys even if you don't want to.
Sound familiar?
Feudalistic and communistic, no?
The way the planners of the town are behaving - though understandable - we see how a police state must eventually collapse since it runs contrary to the human spirit. You can't keep people down and clueless for too long.
Our hunger for knowledge and freedom is just too great and eventually hits political masters like a tsunami.
The trick, I guess, is less on how to control our actions but rather how to harness and treat with care this cherished and beautiful aspect of human nature.
No one likes to be told what to do and when forced to do so, well, I suppose just sealed is the fate of the community to which we're a part of: Doom.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.