On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 09:54:05PM +0200, Giovanni Mascellani wrote: > Il 07/08/19 14:29, Zenaan Harkness ha scritto: > > > Corporations use tacit consent regularly too - Uber gets going in a > > new city, and they assume the right to operate in the face of the > > existing laws about Taxi cabs etc, and build they user base quickly > > enough that by the time any court case gets going, they can have > > financial, legal and government clout to get the laws changed - but > > until that change happens, they operate under TACIT CONSENT - tacit > > consent of the people, and tacit consent of the government. > > There is no law saying that you cannot operate cabs.
Pure hogwash. And a negative averment seeking "tacit support by non response" to boot - devious I tell ya, devious! :) The things people believe, hey? Since you asserted some nonsense, here's some facts in response: Melbourne levels playing field for Uber, taxis, limos https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/12/melbourne-levels-playing-field-uber-taxis-limos/75582478/ Published 4:40 p.m. ET Nov. 12, 2015 MELBOURNE — Rather than changing with the times, Melbourne's licensed taxi, limousine and shuttle companies are relying on government to keep regulatory barriers high and protect their businesses from app-based competitors like Uber, Lyft and Sidecar, City Hall officials believe. That will change: Tuesday night, the Melbourne City Council decided to deregulate the vehicle-per-hire industry in the city and "level the playing field." ... City Council postponed discussion on the topic in August. That's when representatives of some of Melbourne’s 43 licensed taxi, limousine and shuttle companies — plus the Florida Taxicab Association and National Limousine Association — lobbied for continued regulations. ... and see: Facing Uber, Melbourne cab companies support regulations https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/local/2015/08/13/facing-uber-melbourne-cab-companies-support-regulations/31655513/ MELBOURNE – City leaders have hit the brake pedal on a proposal to deregulate Melbourne’s 43 licensed taxi, limousine and shuttle companies. Tuesday, an array of Space Coast cab and limo company owners surprised Melbourne City Council members by asking to continue following City Hall rules. App-based competitors like Uber, Lyft and Sidecar are exempt from city code. But Louie Minardi, president of the Florida Taxicab Association, and David Shaw, the National Limousine Association’s Southeast region director, said their industry should continue having insurance-coverage requirements, vehicle inspections, drug testing and criminal background checks for drivers. “Even the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence has issued warnings about the ride-sharing,” Minardi told council members. “Ride-sharing is where the taxis and limos were years ago. That’s why we have regulation — because we had the same problems. You don’t know who’s driving the car. ... and, for the legal punch line, how Uber created their legal entitlement by effectively saying "f u" to Melbourne's Taxi regulations: Citing Uber, Melbourne may drop taxi permits https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/local/2015/08/02/melbourne-may-drop-taxi-permits-citing-uber-competition/31042705/ Citing competition from Uber and up-and-coming ride-sharing services, Melbourne officials may deregulate taxi, shuttle and limousine companies to level the competitive playing field. Forty-three such companies are licensed to operate in Melbourne, employing 457 permitted drivers and using 131 decal-equipped vehicles. Per city code, these companies must pay a one-time $50 application, pay $10 decal fees per vehicle, and pay a $15 application fee and $24 background-check fee for each prospective driver. Plus, each regulated business must carry liability insurance covering at least $300,000 for injury and death claims per accident. In contrast, no app-based newcomers like Uber, Lyft or Sidecar have gone through the city's application process, City Clerk Cathy Wysor and Police Chief Steve Mimbs — who support taxi deregulation — wrote in a joint memo. ... and if you still don't believe there are laws over taxi cabs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_Australia Taxis in Australia are highly regulated by each Australian state and territory,[1] with each state and territory having its own history and structure. In December 2014, there were 21,344 taxis in Australia.[2] Taxis in Australia are required to be licensed and are typically required to operate and charge on a fitted taximeter. Taxi fare rates are set by state or territory governments. A vehicle without a meter is generally not considered to be a taxi, and may be described, for example, as a hire car, limousine, carpool, etc. Most taxis today are fuelled by liquid petroleum gas. Cabcharge Australia owns and operates the Cabcharge payment system, which claims to cover about 97% of taxis in Australia, and operates one of Australia's largest taxi networks.[3] ... > Actually, there is > something like this somewhere, and in those places Uber cannot operate. > But this has nothing to do with our case, because in fact there is a law > saying that you cannot modify or redistributed other people's > copyrighted code unless you have explicit permission. > > > Just because we are normally not taught about tacit consent, does not > > mean that tacit consent does not exist, or is not used on a daily > > basis all over the planet. > > Yes, but for other things. > > HTH, Giovanni. Well, you provided a classic negative averment - another legal technique - when you said: "There is no law saying that you cannot operate cabs." and then waited to see whether I would fail to respond, in which case it would "be taken" that I had tacitly consented to your rubbish. Now you are in a position where you can accept this, or change the playing field by saying something like "oh I didn't say there were no laws in relation to driving cars for payment, of course there are regulations which normal car drivers don't have to obey", and then I would say "now you're dodging, and besides, Uber didn't break any law, they simply did not obey the city regulations, which are sort of laws but sort of not," and I would say "come on, you're splitting hairs - you made it sound like Uber was not creating a legal entitlement to do what they did, by simply doing it and ignoring the currently legal regulatory regime," and who knows, may be someone somewhere will realise that yes, there are laws around taxi cabs, limousines etc, and yes, Uber bloody well ignored them and DID in fact create their own legal entitlement by doing so (by tacit consent and force of numbers of drivers which they built up quickly enough to have a real "political conversation" in each jurisdiction they began operating in without having to face costly (financially crippling) court cases before they were ready. Anyway, folks don't have to believe in tacit consent for it to be real - ostrich syndrome is pretty big here in Australi, so those who do ignore those techniques which are used against them are no different to the vast majority of other humans. Good luck,
