In a move that shows the true nature of the state and regulations, the Manchester aldermen voted 10-3 recently to require UBER to obey their “Vehicles for Hire” ordinance which requires background checks, drug testing, and other bureaucratic nonsense. The lie of regulations is that they exist supposedly to protect you, the consumer. However, they actually just protect the established businesses in the given field. In this case, the old-guard cab companies are being protected from the innovative upstart. Regulations keep poor people poor, by making it near-impossible for them to go into business for themselves.
Despite the now possible threat of Manchester police targeting UBER drivers, heroically, UBER has announced they will continue to operate within Manchester and will likely give legal assistance to any drivers the city gang cites for violating the gang’s precious “code” (“Vehicles for Hire” is section 118). It looks like UBER is ready to go to court over this, as has been their tradition in other cities.
Of course, a free place to live would allow anyone to contract with anyone they like for a ride somewhere. The taxi companies should also be free of regulations, not just UBER. Allow the marketplace to come up with standards, if they are necessary. The cab companies will need to be free of regulatory burden to effectively compete against the nimble new competitor, UBER.
UBER’s argument, as I understand it, is they are not a taxicab company, for which all the regulations are written. UBER does not own any of the cars that its users end up riding in. UBER merely facilitates a smooth transaction between the rider and driver. It’s a matchmaking company. The next step, which may have even UBER worried, is to decentralize ride-sharing even further, to where no company is needed to make the connections between rider and driver. That actually is being worked on now, and it has a terrible name, LaZooz, but the technology is already here (and based in cryptocurrency like bitcoin) – it’s only a matter of time and software development, and participants.
For now though, UBER and other ridesharing competitors like Lyft, are innovating in a way that expands consumer choice, increases service available overall, drives down price, and rewards entrepreneurs. No wonder the city gang wants to stop them! They disrupt the current good ol’ boys network. (more…)
Dozens of New Hampshire’s inhabitants braved constant rain and cold to come out for the epic event, which also featured state representative Kyle Tasker toking up. Tasker later said in an interview exclusive to Free Keene, “The message sent by law enforcement and heard loud and clear by protesters was police have more important things to do than harass otherwise law abiding citizens over marijuana possession and public use even when it was clear there were amounts present at the protest that could be charged as a felony. The New Hampshire senate needs to consider how productive it is to keep an unenforced, indeed nearly unenforceable law on the books with which the public disagrees.”
No one has ever been arrested at these events despite mass civil disobedience of the cannabis possession laws taking place right outside the state house’s front doors. In fact, obvious police presence was near-zero this year, with a lone state trooper sitting across the street idling in his cruiser for a short time. In previous years, troopers have stood inside the state house windows, watching with crossed arms. This year, nothing!
Even mainstream media is speculating that cannabis decrim may pass in NH this year. 80% of the house voted for decrim already and now it awaits its turn in the NH senate. However, the state’s governor, Maggie Hassan has promised to veto it. This, despite the fact that she admitted to having used it when she was younger. Do you think Maggie would be better off today had she gotten a misdemeanor on her record had she been caught with her pot in her college days?
Unless Maggie finds her conscience, the senate would have to pass cannabis decrim with a veto-proof margin (as did the house – solidly) to protect the legislation from her veto. Now is a good time to contact “your” state senator and talk to them about how they feel about decriminalizing cannabis.
A lack of sunshine did not deter the roughly forty individuals who were present for the annual 4/20 celebration at the New Hampshire state house. Multiple outlets captured video and photography of the scene, including a feature published this morning in the Concord Monitor. Attached below is the Monitor article by Nick Reid. For full raw coverage from Fr33manTVraw, check out this playlist.
A group of activists exercised civil disobedience yesterday by smoking marijuana on the steps of the State House and decrying the war on drugs through a megaphone.
At 4:20 p.m. on April 20, the unofficial pot holiday, about 30 participants huddled away from cold rain under the awning at the front of the State House while the event organizer, Rich Paul, kicked things off.
“We smoke these in remembrance of lost liberties,” he called out, “and in hope for a day when the people do not fear the government, because the government fears the people.”
For the sixth consecutive year, activists will be taking to the State House lawn today, Monday, April 20th at 4:20pm to demand the repeal of the continued war on cannabis consumers. Some will likely engage in civil disobedience. Despite roadblocks put up by NH governor Maggie Hassan, we hope that this will be the year that we win more liberty for our people. Please join us today at the State House lawn at 4:20pm!
Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner!
That’s exactly what went down at last Saturday’s deliberative session, where a small group of fiscally responsible residents went head-to-head with the tax hungry education industry.
As was expected, they were completely outnumbered, ridiculed and ultimately silenced. School board member Susan Hay summed up the proceedings perfectly, “We don’t need a very small minority of people in this community — that do not in any way represent the will of the people — telling us how to do our job.”
This brings up a very important question. Who, then, represents me? If I have no voice because the powers that be disagree or outright refuse to hear me, why then should I be forced to pay into such an institution. What happened to deriving their powers from the consent of the governed? Well, I officially renounce the consent I never swore to in the first place.
My little sisters are in 7th grade. They’re good students. They work hard, they lead group projects, and they spend hours each night on homework. Tonight, I sent them an email encouraging to drop out. (more…)