Moral inversion over disabled taxi fares

Deputy mayor of Middlesbrough Dave Budd said companies ‘have a moral obligation to treat everybody the same’.

© Mars Infomage

© Mars Infomage

In this context treating everyone the same means giving them a larger, scarcer minibus instead of a smaller more common car. I seem to recall driving a minibus commercially also requires a special licence, meaning scarcer staff are also required. The disabled passenger is asking for a naturally much more expensive product for the same price.

In response to this unreasonable demand – and withdrawn subsidies from the Council – Boro Taxis withdrew from taking disabled customers, and have been roundly and comprehensively condemned for it.

This is a great example of a couple of things:

  • Rand’s observation that need is used as a “pass key” for the lives of others.  In standard altruistic ethics a needy man is entitled to the object of his needs regardless of the costs to others. Care for the needy is not weighed against the harm to others who are not needy, and who can be harmed arbitrarily to help the needy. Standard ethics also do not endorse an individual right to decide if their own needs allow for a generous donation to another, while Rand’s alternative ethics are based on the right to make those decisions. The Metro article is a great example of how society fails to endorse that right, and condemns those that exercise it.
  • Heidt‘s analogy between moral calculus and taste buds, wherein different people are sensitive to different kinds of moral question to varying degrees. A liberal, typically, is attuned to “care and harm”, and the liberal author at the Metro, and the deputy mayor quoted are clearly focused on that. Libertarians are uniquely attuned to “justice” and “liberty”, and will note the rights of the taxi operator and weight them evenly.

As a Randian libertarian, the both the initial ban on “discriminatory” pricing, the crack down and the public condemnation of Boro Taxis represent an inversion of morality on the “justice” and “liberty” criteria. I would also point out that expecting Boro Taxis to subsidise the disabled (as has now happened) is a harm to them, and it is a harm which is neither simple bad luck, nor justified by their conduct. In contrast the tragic bad luck of disabled passengers is a morally neutral happenstance (since it did not involve choice). Overall then, my sympathy is firmly behind Boro Taxis. This is not becuase I have no empathy with disabled travellers, I do, but because society seems to be choosing to take too much from Boro Taxis – and is not respecting their rights.

BBC Teeside are also carrying this story and have a longer quote from the taxi operator:

“The simple fact is if you order a car and four people jump in you are charged for a taxi. If you order an eight-seater minibus and eight people jump in you are charged for a minibus.

“If you order a minibus and there’s only one person you will still be charged for a minibus because that’s what you ordered.

“But because we are charging for a minibus we are breaking the law.”

The suspension was, ultimately, a case of unintended consequences. The law banned charging extra to disabled passengers so the operator refused to carry them at all. The chickens came home to roost for advocates of disabled privileges and only a twitter mob saved disabled travellers on Teeside from the unintended consequences of their ideas. This is also an interesting example of libertarian economic consequentialist thinking, but if is first and foremost a moral inversion.

 

 

Note:

The video of Aiden Gregg on speaking on psychology and moral taste buds of libertarians is delayed because, over the weekend, some prat reversed into my car and drove away. I spent much of the weekend working on forms and diagrams for the Police.

Simon Gibbs

Simon is a London based IT contractor and the proprietor of Libertarian Home. Working with logic and cause-and-effect each day he was naturally attracted to nerdy libertarianism and later to harshly logical Objectivism. Find him on Google+ 

Tags:

  7 comments for “Moral inversion over disabled taxi fares

  1. Libertariansarestupid
    Jan 13, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    Ever hear of equality laws? If a libertarian taxi firm doesn’t want to obey society’s laws, it doesn’t get to use society’s roads. Go spinning off away in your delusional libertarian daydream and stop polluting twitter with your bullshit.

    • Jan 13, 2014 at 5:46 pm

      I have heard of equality laws and mention one in the post. I consider them to be morally wrong in many cases, and to have harmful consequences in most.

    • Richard Carey
      Jan 13, 2014 at 8:13 pm

      Why don’t you learn some manners? Then you may be able to make a more positive contribution.

      • Libertariansarestupid
        Jan 13, 2014 at 8:38 pm

        Honestly, I am normally polite to everyone but there is literally no point me trying to debate with libertarians. You guys are too far gone.

        • Jan 13, 2014 at 9:51 pm

          I find that somewhat hard to believe, unless by ‘everyone’ you mean people who agree with you. Libertarians don’t all think the same way and not everyone who reads this will be a libertarian. Had you made a rational point, rather than just being rude, you may have enlightened someone.

    • Jan 13, 2014 at 8:16 pm

      What gives “society” the right to own roads? A society is a collection of individuals with a certain relationship to each other. “Collective ownership” administered by a tax-collecting government amounts to some individuals in the society forcing others to pay for things. Yet an individual has no right to rob another to pay for his needs. How can individuals gain rights in groups that they do not have as individuals?

      I recommend this article: How to Show That Taxation is Robbery.

    • Ayumi
      Jan 14, 2014 at 7:06 pm

      If a disabled person wants to pay less for a mini cab, (and understandably so, because it’s so expensive being disabled), well, that’s between the cab driver and the passenger to negotiate and decide. (Or, between groups, such as between a disability rights group and specific cab company).
      Companies can then decide if this is a good deal for them. Do they want to be nice to people with disabilities? Or does it not financially make sense? Would they choose to discriminate and be seen as a heartless company in the public’s eye? Whatever they choose, it’s up to them.

      The trouble with “equality laws” is it blankets over every situation and assumes a generalised idea of “equality”.

      For example, if you were a cab driver, and a proud, self-righteous, condescending disabled passenger came in, and let’s say he started talking real nasty to his wife or something, and he demands you give him a cheaper fare, would you? No, right?
      But if a big and poor family in need of a minivan, who are super nice to you, asked if they could perhaps negotiate a cheaper fare, and they were willing to go the nine mile and sing songs for you, give you whatever leftover crumbs they have in their pockets, would you say no? No, right?

      One of the underlying morals of Libertarians is an acknowledgement of differences. Every situation is unique. Every person is unique. Some are born disabled. Others become sick. Others are healthy. Moreover, we also acknowledge that situations and people change with time. Sometimes we are able and independent and we have the capacity to give. Other times, we are dependent; when you’re a baby, when you’re sick, when you need a friend, when you’re old; at these times we need to take, and cannot give.

      Every body has needs, and it’s human nature to care for others, but nobody should be forced to give charity. Charity means nothing if it doesn’t come from the heart. You give charity because you want to, never because you have to.

      The (only) law advocated by Libertarians is the protection of individual liberties. This law is fair to every person, and to every situation. It accounts for every situation and person being dependent on everything else.

      When society enforces moral behaviour, and leaves no room for the “if, when or but” situations, then it inevitably becomes unfair to someone at some time.

      If you want to be fair, Libertarian philosophy makes sense.
      Does that make sense to you? (and hey, my name is Ayumi, what’s yours?) Don’t worry, we don’t bite.

Comments are closed.