Skip to main content

Uberpeople Service Animal Discussion

I knew a guy who was terrified of dogs, no matter how small. Even a Mexican Chihuahua would terrify him. It would be a dangerous mistake to force someone like that to drive passengers with service animals.

Some of the people in the thread claim to have pet allergies. Should they be forced to take service animals?

And what about those who have strong religious beliefs about dogs? Whose rights rights should prevail in our new utopian socialist caste system?

I prefer one of the greatest achievements of Western civilization, the now deceased ideal of equal rights for all. In accordance with Rand's statement,

"Any alleged right of one person which necessitates the violation of the rights of another is not, and can never be a "right."

According to that simple formula, there would be no question about the Ubercab driver's right to refuse service animals.

And there's no reason it should be a problem in the first place. There will always be drivers willing to take service animals. The installation of a simple marker or flag in each driver account indicating a desire to accommodate service animals (or anything else, for that matter, including heavy bags or luggage and wheelchairs, tobacco use, racial or ethnic background, music preferences, intelligence, alcohol, prostitutes, drug addicts, people who stink like corpses, etc.) would solve most driver/rider incompatibility issues.

Everyone could be happy. It's the manifestation of Milton Friedman's "Unanimity vs. conformity" argument in favor of the free market vs. the coercive democracy lorded over by slick, mendacious, manipulative, sociopathic, and above all, uninsightful politicians we must all presently endure.

Instead, the politicians opt for brutal mandates, the equivalent of using a legislative sledge hammer to force square pegs into round holes. It creates nothing less than a social pressure cooker. A war of all against all. It's dumb and it's evil.

It also explains why all socialist regimes eventually descend into chaos and mass murder. If the sledge hammer isn't big enough, try a bigger one. And if that doesn't work, use internment camps, guns, gas chambers, and gulags.

For my part, I have never refused animals in my cab. In fact, they are often preferable to many of my "human" passengers.


Service Animals Forced Agreement

Comments

  1. I agree 100% and in my cab I would a sticker on the bumper and side doors stating emphatically. "This car does not transport politicians nor bankers"

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Please feel free to leave your comments, insults, or threats.

Popular posts from this blog

Uber in Hamilton Update: Maria Pearson, Don't Delete This One.Molly A cabbie friend of mine told me that she had recently received a follow-up call from her council rep, Maria Pearson - Ward 10, over a recent licensing issue. After some small talk, the councilor asked my friend, I'll call her Molly, how things were going in the Hamilton taxi business now that Uber had been formally exempted from Hamilton's "old category" of taxi licensing bylaws. Molly told her that things were really bad. Then Molly suggested that if Maria wanted more information on the Uber impact, that she should talk to "Hans." Maria replied, "Hans Wienhold?" Molly: "Yes." Maria: "Oh. I just delete his emails." When I heard this I laughed. First, Maria feigns interest in the plight of Hamilton's cabbies (probably just fishing for a vote, IMHO,) and then, when offered a source of information on the Uber impact, Maria unconsciously intimates th…
Fluid Law and how Uber Successfully Exploited It The guy almost gets the story. One thing he misses, though, is how Uber, with its "Madison Avenue" strategy is able to exploit the natural, systemically inevitable, corruptibility of most politicians. This whole Uber phenomenon would not have been successful at all, given that taxi regulations already exist, unless they could get the politicians on board, and convince them, or persuade them to pretend they actually believe, that Uber was not in the taxi business. Hence, Uber taxis are exempt from existing taxi regulations. Most people would interpret this state of affairs as a tilting of the playing field, which it is. The sleazebags at Hamilton's City Hall came up with the term, "New Licensing Category" in order to facilitate Uber's circumvention of the existing taxi bylaw. "New Licensing Category" is nothing but a code word for tilting the playing field in favour of a politically sexy fad. I…
Cab Drivers Endure Verbal Abuse Friday, October 6, 2017 A group of rowdy young males approached the taxi stand at about 10:00 P.M. looking for a taxi ride to Guelph Line and Upper Middle Road in Burlington, a distance of 18.2 Km. The spokesman for the group offered the driver $20 for the ride. An 18.2 Km. ride in a taxi would run approximately ($1.80/Km X 18.2 Km + $3.90 =) $36.65 at the non-Uber taxi tariff rate mandated by the City of Hamilton for non-exempt (I.E. non-Uber) taxis. The same ride in an Uber taxi, at non-surge pricing would run ($2.50 + $2.80 + 18.2 Km X $.90/Km) = $21.68. As is so typical of younger Canadians, raised and educated in Ontario's liberal dominated "Me First" culture of entitlement, the rider became indignant and intimidating when the driver refused to match Uber's rate and break the law. The millennial then taunted all of the non-exempt cabbies who were present by announcing he would take a tariff-exempt Uber taxi instead. Some …