Uber

Does Uber have a responsibility to cooperate with sting operations favoring crony-capitalist competitors?

Steven Green, Instapundit

 

In an effort to circumvent the laws in some cities, Uber has an app called Greyball.  The app keeps track of those accessing the Uber app with particular attention to those who might be setting up a sting operation against Uber drivers working in areas where the ride sharing service is not legal.  Clever.

One of my favorite economists, Walter Williams, has described smugglers as heroes.  Indeed, if Bill is willing to drive Sally to the airport in his private vehicle and Sally is willing to pay, why should government have the right to deny them from engaging in this mutually beneficial trade?  On the other hand, if the population of a locality has freely elected those who make such laws, those laws should be followed.  Federalism and libertarianism clash here.  But even there, Steven Green has a point in that it is not incumbent on the "lawbreaker" to cooperate with efforts to catch them.

 

The taxi model with its medallion system is a relic of an older era.  With cellphones and willing drivers, hailing a cab is heading out with the buggy whip.  Heck, before too much longer, cars with drivers will be an oddity.  Embrace the future and let free people engage in free trade.

Socialism is Immoral

Stumbled upon this interesting video by Stefan Molyneux, a Canadian blogger with a libertarian bent and fondness for philosophy.  He explains why he abandoned his socialist beliefs because socialism seeks to define the world in a way that is in contradiction to the truth.  He repeatedly goes back to the sun being the center of our solar system, which is just the way it is.  One cannot decide that the Earth as the center would be better for society.  Likewise, there are similar foundational truths that undermine socialism.

 

Individuals own themselves and their actions.  To argue against this, is to be in favor of slavery.  If Bob grows a flower on his property, it is his flower.  If he grows 10 flowers, they are all his flowers.  The same goes for a million flowers.  There is no numerical limit where Bob's actions are no longer under his ownership.  Socialism supposes that the government can appropriate assets for the good of society, to provide a more equal distribution of wealth; that is theft.  To argue that, at a certain level of wealth, one's actions become the property of society is to argue against the foundational principal of self-ownership.  Just because Bill Gates remains in the top 1% after half his wealth is taken by government does not make the theft less immoral.  One of my favorite economists, Walter E. Williams, has said the same, but is more pithy:

“No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong”

 

“But let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you - and why?”

 

So far, this is the only video of his that I have watched.  I am interested to see what he has to say about other governmental systems and the morality of taxation in general.  Is there an ethical level of taxation?  Though I also lean heavily libertarian, it approaches anarchy in its purest form.