Austin, Texas Is Already Regretting Its Decision to Force Out Uber and LyftBy Generation Opportunity
More than a year ago, Uber and Lyft warned the city council of Austin that if they passed a package of burdensome fingerprinting requirements for ridesharing companies, Austinites might be left without options. The sponsor of the regulation, Ann Kitchen, issued a sharp rebuke.
“To threaten to leave, simply because we are trying to protect public safety, cannot be my deciding factor,” Kitchen shot back. “There are other transportation network companies, and they will be here.”The onerous fingerprint requirements would create needless ‘friction,’ and shrink the pool of rideshare drivers.
By: -Although the border wall planned by US President Donald Trump has created widespread controversy, it is not the only one, since the barriers that divide people around the world are a frequently used resource in order to prevent migratory flows.
There are currently approximately 70 border walls around the world, in comparison with a dozen 25 years ago when the well-known Berlin Wall fell, according to Elisabeth Vallet, a researcher at the University of Quebec.
By: -According to a study by the Pew Research Center, 5.8 million Mexicans live in the United States without legal immigration status, which means that they constitute more than half of all undocumented immigrants. This figure, however large it may seem, is actually a decrease, since in 2009 it was 6.4 million.
For this reason, the Mexican government is concerned about US President Donald Trump’s stricter immigration policies, which expanded officials’ power to deport undocumented immigrants as well as increasing cases that are considered a priority. In addition to people who have committed serious crimes, it also includes those who arrived with any criminal record.
Venezuelans have spent hours in such lines, as they await a product that has been in short supply for several days in different cities across the country.
The morning of this Thursday, March 23, the country dawned partially paralyzed, as thousands of Venezuelans are unable to head to school or work.
“We are reinforcing our distribution in the center of the country to stabilize the fuel supply … Queues have been generated at some service stations in four states of the country, due to the delay in distribution of gasoline,” said the vice president of PDVSA, Ysmel Serrano.
The Democratic Charter would theoretically be imposed if Maduro does not allow for free and open elections, and would result in Venezuela’s removal from the organization, which would in itself have long-lasting economic and political consequences.
No one should be a utilitarian. But from a utilitarian point of view, Batman's logic is superficially appealing: He can sacrifice one life to save 7 billion humans with 1% probability, for a net expectational gain of 69,999,999 lives. Until, of course, you pause and reflect. Consider the following utilitarian counter-arguments, in ascending order of quality.
Until recently, I only knew Howard Hughes' World War I saga Hell's Angels (1930) second-hand, from Martin Scorsese's Hughes biopic, The Aviator. I was amazed when I finally watched Hughes' classic. The special effects are stunning even by modern standards. And the Pre-Code script is too good to be true.
On the surface, the audience is supposed to detest the selfish, unscrupulous Monte Rutledge, the "bad brother" of protagonist Roy Rutledge. But as in Milton's Paradise Lost, the author plainly has great sympathy for the devil. The best scene must have shocked World War I veterans around the world. When Monte feigns illness to avoid combat, a fellow pilot angrily declares, "He's yellow and we all know it." Then Monte pulls off the mask:
Governments were forced to adopt better policies because labor and capital had significant ability to cross borders in search of less oppression.
But that began to change several hundred years ago. Europe experienced the enlightenment and industrial revolution while the empires of Asia languished.
What accounts for this dramatic shift?
I’m not going to pretend there’s a single explanation, but part of the answer is that Europe benefited from decentralization and jurisdictional competition. More specifically, governments were forced to adopt better policies because labor and capital had significant ability to cross borders in search of less oppression.
I’m certainly a big fan of making governments compete with each other, but even I didn’t realize how jurisdictional rivalry gave us modernity.
But you don’t have to believe me. This topic was discussed by Professor Roland Vaubel at last week’s Mont Pelerin Society meeting. Here are some excerpts from one of Professor Vaubel’s papers on the topic.
Given this, the paucity of general works on the history and philosophical bases of liberalism and the mediocrity of most of the readily accessible ones is curious indeed. (This does not hold, however, for works of more limited scope. The Decline of American Liberalism, (1955) by Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr., for example, combines fine scholarship with a seasoned understanding of the true meaning of liberalism.)
The best known book in the field is doubtless the History of European Liberalism, by Guido de Ruggiero, originally published in 1925. Still useful in some respects, it suffers from a conceptual haziness and a lack of cutting edge perhaps attributable to the neo-idealist philosophy popular in Italy at the time, of which the author was a follower.
The historical background is essential for a worthwhile discussion of economic development, which is an integral part of the historical progress of society. But many of the most widely publicized writings on development effectively disregard both the historical background and the nature of development as a process. (Bauer 1972, 324–25)Too many writers in the field have succumbed to professional overspecialization combined with a positivist obsession with data that happen to be amenable to mathematical techniques. The result has been models of development with little connection to reality:
Bismarck won out, and the welfare state was eventually copied everywhere in Europe.
Tens of millions who would have perished in the inefficient economy of the old order were able to survive.
Drawn mainly from the middle classes, it included people from widely contrasting religious and philosophical backgrounds. Christians, Jews, deists, agnostics, utilitarians, believers in natural rights, freethinkers, and traditionalists all found it possible to work towards one fundamental goal: expanding the area of the free functioning of society and diminishing the area of coercion and the state.
Perhaps, the thinking goes, the libertarians had their political American Idol audition, delivered a pitchy performance, and were sent home: end of story.
In a sense, to even frame things in this way is silly. It would only make sense if libertarians were a curious sect with quirky ideas that somehow gained outsize national attention, giving us a one-time chance to seize the reins of power: like how the South Korean presidency was won by a member of the Church of Eternal Life cult. Since that president was recently forced from office, surely the Church of Eternal Life’s “moment” has come and gone.
A Branding Problem
Poor branding is partly to blame: specifically, the use of the label “libertarian” instead of the philosophy's original name, “liberalism.” In defense of those who made that name change, they didn’t have much of a choice. By the time “libertarianism” was adopted, “liberalism” had already been long lost: hopelessly hitched to a decidedly illiberal ideology.
Liberalism is actually a centuries-old tradition with millennia-old roots.
But the new label has created the false impression that the liberty tradition is much younger and more idiosyncratic than it really is: as if it’s a new-fangled left/right hybrid cooked up in the 1970s. Yet the truth is quite the opposite. As I will discuss below, what we now call “liberalism” and what we now call “conservatism” are both themselves hybrid descendants of what we now call “libertarianism.”
Abandoning “liberalism” has detached the philosophy from its long and glorious history and heritage. Liberalism/libertarianism is actually a centuries-old tradition with millennia-old roots. It is the founding philosophy of America, the catalyst of the rise of the West, and the source of almost all things sweet and splendid about the modern world around us.
Well, if you put it that way, what kind of seditious scoundrel wouldn’t be troubled by the president’s comrades huddling with “suspected Russian operatives”? What if CNN asked voters this, though: Are you concerned that an attorney general nominee met with the Russian ambassador in course of his duties as a U.S. senator and member of the Armed Services Committee? I suspect the numbers would look a bit different.
“I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show that the President-elect and his team were, I guess, at least monitored,” House Intelligence Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-California), said.
Nunes explained “incidental collection” of information regarding the President-elect and his team occurred primarily in November through January according to reports.
“9 Reasons Constitutional Originalism is Bullsh*t,” Filipovic’s headline reads. We must be conscious of the possibility that Filipovic is not familiar with originalism and indeed had not even heard of the concept until someone told her about it sometime during the past six weeks or so. There is plenty of evidence throughout her essay to suggest as much, but I just want to focus on one example.
At its best, these frustrations would be articulated by the Republican Party in ways that lead to more freedom and less government. At its worst, these frustrations cast aside Constitutional principles, encourage dictatorial behavior, and become the toxic political equivalent of the two Southie brothers who claimed Trump inspired them to beat up a Hispanic homeless man.
California and Texas are similar in many ways. Hispanics are about 39 percent of the population of both states, both share a border with Mexico, and both have a long history of Mexicans living there (although Texas’ history is longer and richer). Crucially, large numbers of voters in both states have worried about illegal immigration and border control for decades. However, the political outcomes in both states are radically different because their state Republican parties dealt with illegal immigration and border security in very different ways.
That’s basically where we stand. After sending mixed signals, The Hill reports that Democrats will be making a concerted effort to defend San Francisco’s sanctuary laws and killing of Kathryn Steinle along the city’s famous waterfront. Most Republicans will avoid the matter altogether for the sake of political expediency. Soon enough, I imagine, it’ll be xenophobic to bring it up at all. One of these conversations, after all, is risk-free, jammed with self-satisfying preening about the right sort of evils. The other, morally complex—especially for the supporters of immigration reform (like myself)—and fraught with electoral consequences.