Sad news from Uber
Uber banning riders, drivers from carrying guns
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/06/20/uber-banning-riders-drivers-from-carrying-guns/
But is this sad news? The libertarian position should be that every person should be free to carry a gun if they choose, and that is it.
Further, if a firm wants to ban gun carrying by its employees or on its property that is fine with me.
The libertarian position should be respect for private property and for the non-aggression principle. It should be silent on rules of individual firms on an issue and what it demands of individuals, as long the demands do not violate NAP.
-RW
Agree no libertarian problem here. Seems to me a reasonable tactic by Uber to reduce legal liability in case of gun-related incident. "Hey, don't sue us. Having a gun is against our policy."
ReplyDeleteDrivers and passengers can still be armed but just violates Uber policy. The obvious downside is it might put Uber drivers at more risk if would-be muggers think they aren't armed.
The irony is that the armed Uber driver mentioned in the Fox story may have saved his own and other innocent lives...
"In April, an Uber driver with a concealed-carry permit shot a 22-year-old man who had opened fire on a group of pedestrians in Chicago. Court records say the man was shooting at pedestrians who were walking in front of the Uber driver's vehicle, and the driver shot the gunman. The driver wasn't charged, as prosecutors said he acted in defense of himself and others."
Irony indeed. The policy is doubly sad because of the mindset behind it, the erroneous belief that guns are at odds with safety. As you point out the FOX News article clearly illustrates the exact opposite scenario. By taking this action now, in specific reaction to that armed driver saving those people in Chicago in April, Uber is sending a particularly blunt message it would rather have seen this driver disarmed and all those people shot dead. As would have been the case if Uber implemented this policy 4 months ago. Such a bald-faced anti-self-defense stance is particularly repugnant.
DeleteIf there were competition in the space no doubt a competitor with the opposite view would arise. I think it would take off because it would be offering a higher level of service. Such a competitor could charge higher fees to customers and offer higher rates to armed drivers who necessarily provide higher security to passengers traveling under their aegis.
In the rest of the marketplace today, armed security guards command higher wages than unarmed ones because they can respond to violent attack. Who wouldn't appreciate a personal driver also thus capable, especially single young women, especially when traveling near rough neighborhoods in LA or NY or in barren areas late at night.
I'd go farther to say not only is it sad, it's quasi-illegitimate. Liberty is an ecosystem. We can’t focus on just one party’s property rights and ignore the property rights of other parties. Ecosystems like liberty are viable because they include complex counterbalancing incentives across all property owners.
ReplyDeleteThe libertarian stance of absolute respect for private property rights is predicated on a certain context: _universal_ respect for private property rights. Uber’s right to specify what its drivers can and can’t do rests on the same principle that guarantees a competing car service company’s right to enter the market to compete with Uber. This is why abhorrent, toxic, irrational business policies, don’t last long under free market competition. “If you don’t like it, go somewhere else, har har har!” becomes something a competitive business owner has precious little room to say. Yet Uber currently holds an unnatural, state-granted, position to say just that and get away with it nearly consequence-free.
The taxi business is anything but competitive thanks to government. Plus, as has been pointed out on this very blog, Uber has cooperated with governments to strengthen barriers to entry behind it as fast as it has pushed through barriers to entry in front of it. Gun-friendly car services can't arise to compete. Uber, along with licensed taxi services, de facto enjoys a state-afforded position of quasi-monopoly privilege in most markets.
Libertarian theory has not tried to accommodate and I believe cannot reconcile both a monopolist enjoying state-granted privilege hinging on necessary wholesale violation of others’ property rights and also that same monopolist simultaneously enjoying obligatory adherence to its contractual agreements hinging on complete respect for its own property rights. The two concepts are at root philosophically incompatible.
My guess is many passengers and drivers able to carry concealed will ignore Uber’s policy. In the eventuality one is called upon to draw one's gun, which is necessarily only in a life-threatening situation, losing one's driver or passenger privileges with Uber will be the least of one's concerns.
Since when can't libertarians criticize the policies of private institutions? I remember you were all over Starbucks' Race Together campaign.
ReplyDeleteThere is a big difference between a race campaign which requires employees to confront customers over lefty race beliefs and a company that sets employee policy that does not involve promotion of ideas to customers
DeleteIs there a big difference? Wenzel is talking about not being able to criticize a private company when they are not violating the NAP, yet he has in the past criticized Starbucks for policies that similarly don't violate the NAP.
DeleteFurthermore, this move is totally out of LEFT field, and has just made being an Uber driver, let alone a user, much more dangerous.
"It has also been criticized over the thoroughness of the background checks it does on drivers and other safety issues."
ReplyDeleteAs a woman, I don't feel safe getting a car with a stranger without my firearm.
Uberr might have a point if their drivers were employees. But Uber treats the drivers as independent contractors.
ReplyDeleteRW is technically correct. Private entities can set their own policies as long as interaction is voluntary. In the real world where businesses use government to minimize competition by force or use tax funding to subsidize operations its difficult to tell the difference between private company policy and government edict.
ReplyDeleteYes, exactly. Well-said. Like companies operating under fascism, Uber's titular status of "private company" is irrelevant if it is not actually operating as a private company, i.e. in a market open to competition.
DeleteFor example, the local electric utility franchise holder, PG&E, or local cable TV franchise holder, Comcast, or local taxi franchise holders are all labelled as "private companies." But to the extent government legislatively advantages these entities, proscribes how they operate, and prevents the entry of competitors, they are not true private companies.
To that extent, their "policy decisions" become functionally equivalent to government agency edicts. As such they may be ethically disregarded.
In my opinion, until and unless the state deregulates the taxi market enough that pro-gun taxi services can readily enter and operate in competition with Uber, Uber's prohibition of guns need not be respected.
Uber Driver Robbed At Gunpoint Two Weeks After Company Disarmed Drivers
ReplyDeleteUber driver breaks anti-gun policy, shoots passenger who allegedly choked him
ReplyDeleteEvery guard should know their duties and responsibilities before proceeding to work. We are also providing the same sort of service on getting security guard training Indiana and license.
ReplyDelete