Friday, September 22, 2017

The Real Story Behind Why Uber Lost Its License to Operate in London

Government has raised its ugly head in London to clearly demonstarte that it is evil.

Uber will not be issued a new private hire license, Transport for London  said.

TfL concluded Uber was not fit and proper to hold a London private hire operator liclicense
It said it took the decision on the grounds of
"public safety and security implications".

Of course, no one is forcing anyone to take an Uber ride. It is done voluntarily which means the actual users are judging the "public safety and security implications" differently than the coercive state.

Some 3.5 million passengers and 40,000 drivers use Uber in London.

The cultural Marxist, crony Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said: "I fully support TfL's decision - it would be wrong if TfL continued to license Uber if there is any way that this could pose a threat to Londoners' safety and security."

The decision means Uber is technically not allowed to operate in London from October 1, although it has 21 days to appeal against the decision and will be able to continue to provide services during this period, and for the duration of the appeals process.

Confirming it would appeal against the decision, Uber said it showed the world "far from being open, London is closed to innovative companies".

Of course, what is really going down is an attempt by old-school taxi drivers to block competition.

Brett Arend explains:
[T]his bush move by the London mayor has very little to do with defending the safety of passengers, and a lot to do with defending the jobs of his politically organized supporters in the transport industry.
There are 28,000 unionized employees of Transport for London itself, and 22,000 politically powerful drivers of black London taxis. They don’t want competition, for the same reason the rest of us don’t. We’d love to be able to put our feet up. Alas and alack, most of us have to compete for business in our lives. Unless, of course, we can use union power and muscle to get political patrons to protect us.
Maria Ludkin, legal director of the 631,000 GMB trade union, said the license loss was a "historic victory."

“No company can behave like it’s above the law, and that includes Uber. No doubt other major cities will be looking at this decision and considering Uber’s future on their own streets,” she said.



  1. Coincidentally there was odd story on Chicago news last night bewailing the plight of Chicago taxi drivers bleating how the Wicked Uber and Lyft had taken rides from them

  2. What I find amusing is that statists who are enamored of Uber and who will retort "We can make our own decisions about safety" will not recognize that this same argument can and should be made with respect to legislation prohibiting or restricting use of narcotics, medical drugs and firearms, legislation requiring safety features in vehicles or in the workplace, and all other types of paternal legislation. If only logical consistency reigned.

    1. What I find amusing is that lolbertarians who are for open borders don't see a correlation between socialist immigration and the same socialists and their offspring implementing socialist policies.

    2. I agree, It is funny that you think socialism didn't exist before immigration.

    3. @Paul Hansen

      Why do you constantly bring up immigration in topics that have nothing to with immigration?

      Also, state border control IS a socialist policy.

    4. Paul:

      1. Why only object to immigrant socialists? Homegrown socialists can be just as pernicious. Shouldn't we round up and expel even socialist citizens?

      2. How can you know whether each person who wants to enter the US is a socialist? It can't be based on skin color or region, since there are free market advocates and socialists of all skin colors and in all regions.

      3. Isn't a socialist someone who favors state ownership of resources and central planning? Wouldn't that include state ownership of border control resources and central planning of immigration?

  3. But isn't Uber simply a business than can lose money hand over fist hoping to outlive its competition thanks to central bank monetary policy?

  4. Evil is a subjective value judgement. It's not "evil" just because you disagree with one policy.

    1. When 2 people want to make a voluntary transaction and a 3rd party interferes by threatening violence, that seems pretty evil.

  5. Uber - of course - was largely foreshadowed by David Friedman in his 1971 (yes 1971!) book "Machiney Of Freedom" in his chapter entitled - "99 and 44/100ths Percent Built" (see PDF - )

    Anyhow anti-Uber polit-trickery is examined here:-

    Uber drives the left crazy - but they know millennials - (who they are reaching out to, and counting on as a path to power)- use Uber and love it. So it makes them double triple crazy.

    I suspect this is the reason for the high profile given in the MSM gives to "storm in a teacup" internal Uber corporate politics - e.g. real and alleged cases of sexual harassment 'scandals'. This conttrasts to the "crickets noise" regarding internal wars within seemingly more SJW friendly corporations like Goolag and Apple. These firms have largely got a free pass on their cooperation with (say) the Chinese government net censorship.