Why is it even remotely reasonable that taxi drivers should have background checks? Are we really that worried about rogue taxi drivers? What is the worst case scenario here? What exactly does a background check for taxi drivers prevent?
The idea that the state should have anything to say about driving a car in exchange for money is absurd on its face and nothing more than the worst, silliest kind of security theater in my view.
Getting in a car with random strangers is a perfect case of information asymmetry. Passengers aren't going to be repeat customers with the same drivers. Each driver is pretty much an unknown that the passenger has little control over choosing.
On the broader point about what the government should be regulating: One of the worst things about living outside the developed world is how careful you have to be. You have to be careful what you eat, who you get in a car with, where you go. The consequences of not being careful are significant. In the developed world, the government ensures a minimum level for pretty much everything, and it's amazing. It's civilization.
In the developing world, Uber/Ola/etc do a great job of filling in for that role. The idea that government is needed for this is pretty silly - Uber/Ola/etc are doing a vastly better job of protecting customers than any government agency I'm aware of.
Even a week after the famous Delhi Uber rape case, every woman I know would still prefer to take an Uber/Ola rather than a (government regulated) auto or taxi. After all, Uber/Ola actually care about their reputation and immediately took steps to make rides safer (e.g. privately provided background checks) when they realized the government provided certificate of good character (cost: an 8k bribe) were insufficient.
All the government did in response was tell women to spend more money on less safe modes of transportation. (Recall that in the 2012 Delhi gang rape incident, the woman was only on the bus because the government regulated auto rickshaw was overcharging her and she couldn't afford to ride it.)
I couldn't disagree more. Whether or not a passenger is a repeat customer of a driver is irrelevant, the drivers are rated by each passenger (at least for uber, this is non-optional), and if their rating gets too low, they stop getting fares. This system is infinitely more effective, efficient, fair and maybe most importantly, up to date, than any background check or fingerprinting system ever could be.
And not only is it effective at protecting the public, it actually incentivizes the driver to be better than the bare minimum (which is what is encouraged by simple background checks).
How does a rating stop a person from becoming a driver just so he can rape his first fare, then quit? He's not going to be bothered by stars or future fares.
How does a fingerprint/background check stop a person from becoming a driver just so he can rape his first fare, then quit?
You're basically asking, how does X prevent a person from being a rapist?
Answer: nothing can "prevent" rapists and murderers. they exist regardless of precautions, and the word "prevention" is overused. background checks, and fingerprints do nothing to prevent creeps.
How does a background check or fingerprint accomplish that either? And secondly, why is that even a concern? If someone wants to rape, they don't need to be an uber driver to do it.
I agree. People's fear over Uber drivers makes absolutely no sense. It's rooted in prejudiced fears of taxis which did make sense in the older context of taxis (no GPS, no log of who you're picking up, etc.).
If you are a nefarious individual, the last thing you want to do is drive an Uber. If you try to commit criminal activity, there is a complete log of who you picked up and everywhere you went.
Of course, there will still occasionally be incidents. But there are incidents with taxi drivers. There are incidents with people who have to undergo even more intensive background checks. Past behavior is no guarantee of future legality.
The state uses regulation for health and safety purposes all the time. Valid or not, the state, affirmed by democratic vote, wants fingerprinting as an additional assurance of driver fitness.
Let me turn this around: what in particular about driving passengers for profit means they should be exempt from regulation? Or do you simply reject regulation on some sort of absolutist libertarian principle?
I wasn't making an argument about whether or not the government has the authority to do this. Of course they do, and of course the people have the right to vote for it, and the companies are bound by it.
I was arguing that the regulation itself is inadvisable, and I don't think the position is particularly absolutist. The government should step in to regulate areas that pose a significant risk to the public, but that the market does a poor job of regulating on its own. Things like food safety and environmental protections are prime examples of this. Taxi driving is not.
The damage causable by a single rogue taxi driver is, at its worst, minimal and not much different from the damage that can be caused by any random malicious citizen. If a rapist or murderer wants to rape and murder, being a taxi driver helps them in so doing marginally at best.
Do you know what does do a pretty good job at regulating taxi drivers? An instant, non-optional review system.
The uber review system is a good protection against a driver who is rude or unprofessional to most of their customer. It does not do anything against a repeat sex offender who will randomly assault a customer every few months. Fingerprinting would. Two different systems for two different purposes.
If I don't think airline passengers should be fingerprinted as a condition of flying, is it because I simply reject regulation on some sort of absolutist libertarian principle? Or are some regulations (don't bring a gun on board) ok, but others (submit to biometric scanning) not?
The state already has things to say about driving. At all, for any reason. They already have different classes of licensing for driving your own car vs. commercial vehicles. And for most vehicles other than cars, you already need extra licensing to commercially transport passengers. If you are taking a philosophical stand, you had better also start campaigning against commercial pilot licenses and boat captains.
Commercial trucks and planes represent different levels of risk to the public. Taxi driving does not represent a greater level of public threat than any given person driving any other as a passenger.
The idea that the state should have anything to say about driving a car in exchange for money is absurd on its face and nothing more than the worst, silliest kind of security theater in my view.