If everyone loses their jobs, who will be able to buy the products?
If nobody can find work, that means, there is no work to do. Which is just awesome, if that's because robots are doing everything. The means of production will, finally, be able to satisfy all demand...
If the car that crippled you was operated by an employee of a cab company, it might mean that a legal settlement would be reached such that you'd spend the rest of your life at your house with inhouse nurse care.
And it would be even better, if the taxis are all government-owned — in which case you'll get a truly gold-plated care, will you not? Heck, some of the poor may choose to stand on busy intersections just for that reason — would not that be terrific?
Do I hear a proposal to nationalize all transportation? And, better yet, all other corporations? Bigger is better, is not it?
Insurance rates are based on risk. Are you claiming that a car that is on the road all day long
A car may be on the road all day long for many different reasons. It makes sense for annual mileage to affect the cost of insurance — indeed, it is already factored in usually.
Singling out "commercial use" does not make sense.
The amount of insurance carried by Uber drivers is also probably much less than NY taxis.
If this fact does not bother you, when you are getting a free ride from an acquaintance, it should not bother you, when you are riding Uber(X).
And if it still bothers you anyway, well, just hail an "official" cab.
Which means the answer is not banning abortion, but banning the racism that leads to the financial inequity.
"Banning racism"... That's a good one. You can't ban thoughts — not yet, anyway. At most, you can prohibit some manifestations of those thoughts...
More importantly, though, racism is not the reason. Oh, it does exist, but that's not the reason for the Blacks' poverty. You see, Asians are targets of racism too — in America. Jews were targets of racism in Europe for centuries — and remain in certain places. Yet, neither of those two groups are worse off, on average, than the surrounding population at large. In fact, they tend to be better off — despite the racism.
I don't know, what the actual reason's are — may be, it is all of the condescending efforts to "help" Blacks (such as via affirmative action), that are holding them down. I am not sure. But racism is not it.
Sure, they make you swear to tell the truth, but actually doing so is usually not so great an idea.
Well, now that you've posted your incendiary speech on a public forum, you may as well repeat it in court. Or do you believe in that "Anonymous" nonsense? Of course not...
the decision for that should be made by the mother. Which eliminates everything that is morally wrong with eugenics.
Almost all. For full fairness, the father should have a say too — if he is on the hook for 18-21 years of child support, he ought to be able to weight-in on whether to abort, for example.
And then, of course, there is the uncomfortable truth, that fetuses of a certain race are aborted much more often, than others. Something, the noisiest defenders of the procedure's legality — had they been self-consistent in their thought — would've called evidence of racism...
No, frequency and other conditions are different.
Well, if it is the frequency, that concerns you, then, perhaps, you may wish to require additional qualifications from those, who travel more than a certain amount of kilometers per year — regardless of their reasons for doing it. But singling out people, who are trying to make a living — that's not fair and there is no justification for it.
If you want to take a paying passenger then you need a transport pilot license.
That it is so currently is not in itself evidence, that that's, how things ought to be... Why should I need a government's permission to earn money doing, what I am allowed to do for free?
The license is there to (among other things) show that you have that experience.
The experience comes from driving — not from driving for hire. A young driver, who passes the test for "commercial" license is still much less experienced, that a middle-aged one — even though the latter has never taken money for giving somebody a ride.
Bottom line is, business is viewed by everyone with suspicion — and that's why governments world-wide impose unfair and uncalled-for regulations on them. Especially the democratic governments, because business-owners, however beneficial they may be to the society and however large their taxes may be, still have only one vote. It has gotten so bizarre in the last 50 years or so, that people can post nonsense like "you need permission to be making money" — and aren't escorted to a mental institution after saying it...
Share you little agenda-points with me to confirm my accusation? What? Why am I supposed to listen, to what your kind "actually thinks" — are you so sure, you have a modicum of original thought in there, that it is worth noting — and posting on
The problem with dystopian theories like this is bullets are cheap. If you've subjugated the public to the point that you can force expensive brain surgery on them, why bother? Just shoot the people you don't like.
Besides, there's a huge market for non-lethal weapons; if this works on everyone and incapacitates rapidly, government labs and defense contractors will be tripping over themselves to reproduce this effect through external stimulus. No surgery necessary. Woo...
If you take all the people with traits you don't like, and murder them
Whoa! Wait a minute — you don't have to murder anyone (unless you need a scapegoat to explain your regime's failures to your citizens). You can simply discourage (or outright block) them from procreating.
Organizations like "Planned Parenthood" were created for that exact purpose — and I'm quoting from their founder — "to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit". Not that you'd find this bit of info on the organization's Wikipedia page...
You must be an American if you equate liberal with socialist. In Europe, they tend to be the very opposite of each other.
Yep. The European Liberals actually stand for liberty. The American users of the name are the opposite — their first solution to any problem is to create a government agency responsible for solving it, as well as simply banning the use of anything potentially dangerous — and thus the proper name for them is Illiberal.
The rest of us have to share the roads with these "taxis" as well.
You have the same amount of "skin in the game", whether the man is driving a paying fare or giving a free ride to a friend.
The rules for getting a bus driving license and a heavy truck driving license are the virtually the same
May be, but that's not, what we are discussing here.
One reason mentioned in those cases is that you for example have to have the wherewithal to be able to stand up to a pissed off customer when you deem conditions to be unsafe
The wherewithal comes simply from experience — not from a license.
The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an 8. -- R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]
