Insulting Uber editorial

Hot off the press: Time for Uber to get real. This editorial is riddled with one bad argument after another. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to see right through it. Right off the bat, we have the following:

It is increasingly clear that Uber and most of its drivers are not interested in doing what is right despite Portsmouth city officials’ effort to create a fair and reasonable set of rules to allow ride-sharing services to operate legally in the city.

The first statement equates "doing what is right" with following various statutes and laws. Of course, what is right, i.e., ethical, is not always the same as what is legal. Slavery was once legal, yet it wasn't "right." Alcohol was once forbidden, yet it isn't "wrong." The second claims that the new Portsmouth ordinances are fair and reasonable, but according to whom?  Uber drivers and their passengers would argue exactly the opposite, and this editorial's opinion certainly isn't better or worse than someone else's.

Let's move on.

If the picketing outside a city bar recently weren’t enough, now a group of Free State Uber drivers is planning to picket outside City Hall on Monday before the City Council meets and takes up another request by Uber to alter the city’s new transportation ordinance. It’s sad to say, but you can’t make this stuff up. 

What exactly is the problem with picketing outside City Hall or outside a bar? The author makes no case why these actions are no good. The protesters are exercising their free speech. So what? It seems like the author just doesn't like what the protesters are protesting. But I don't understand. Presumably, civil disobedience against this ordinance would be maligned by the author. Protesting is the "legal" way of attempting to change the system. If this too is bad, what should the Uber supporters do? Answer: shut up and take it.

The author goes on to link protesters with the Free State Project. Is the link real? Maybe so and maybe no, but, with all their publicity, both good and bad, this link looks like an attempt to poison the well for those who dislike the Free State Project.

Then there is some funny statement about Uber being a national compnay.

It should come as no surprise that local taxi cab operators are in compliance and the national Uber company is not. It sort of evokes the mantra of buy local. 

This is a complete red herring. Uber is a national company, and Portsmouth taxis are not. So what? First, it does not follow in any way whatsover that Uber will or won't follow local ordinances. The same is true for taxis. Second, to attempt make the distinction between national and local here is to pull on people's heartstrings even though it has no relevance in determining who is right or wrong here. "Illegal" Uber driver Christopher David, with a wife and baby on the way, is no less human than any taxi driver. The same goes for Stephanie Franz.

It's ok, however. At the very end, the editorial makes sense:

Ultimately, the consumer may have the final say on this matter given the challenges police have expressed in enforcing the city’s law. If people feel comfortable taking rides from strangers who do not want to have full criminal background check that will be their choice.

Exactly. It's the choice of the consumers. The very fact that Uber drivers are so popular should indicate that consumers do in fact demand Uber, even if they aren't "safe," by the standards of the author.  Why didn't the writer of this editorial start with this and then stop writing? Is he/she really so worried about people freely engaging in voluntary trade without the permission of the Portsmouth government? Or is this news resource in the tank for Portsmouth taxis? It certainly seems so.

With any law that is passed, one must always ask: "Cui bono?"