Cowardly Statists Harass the Weak

Hamilton's protesting cabbies are taking the wrong approach. They just haven't yet figured out how things work in this great country.

During today's protest cabbies were asking for laissez-faire, not understanding that laissez-faire is stone dead in this country. The sooner they wise up to this contemporary truth the sooner they can fine-tune their political efforts to achieve solid results.

They could take a hint from some of Ontario's farmers who recently created a big stink promoting the impression that their own problems are so unique they deserve government handouts. The farmers say that, without coercion based funding (taxes) and "legislative help" (read: other forms of state coercion designed to redirect dollars into their own pockets), farmers will be driven into bankruptcy and the province's food supply threatened.

Just change a couple of words and we have, "without financial and legislative help, cabbies will be driven into bankruptcy and the city's taxi supply threatened."

Why do dog's lick their balls? Because they can.

Why do ignorant legislators and their hired staff regulate the taxi business? The problem is, when you give someone authority without responsibility, you end up with skewed results. It's all well and good for council and staff to sit back and prescribe some idealized notion of how an industry should look and operate. It's quite another matter altogether to actually make the system work which is all too conveniently left up to someone else.

When you consider that Hamilton's taxi industry is entirely self-funding you have to marvel that it manages to operate at all. The industry must not only endevour to survive on the thinnest of margins but is also forced, through licencing and other impositions, like those ridiculous and mandatory yellow emergency lights, to carry the burden of the local government upon it's beleaguered shoulders.

What Hamilton's cab drivers should be demanding, as a matter of right in a country where entitlements have become legally enforceable rights, is that the city take over the entire taxi operation and make all it's drivers public employees. Using it's reliable supply of tax dollars the city could have the finest taxi fleet in North America... why bother with a six year age limit on taxis. Why not have a fleet of brand new Lincoln Towncars every year? The drivers would love it.

In no time at all, of course, the drivers would all become part of one of the local public sector unions. Ask them if they wouldn't trade in their current struggles for the high wages and benefits and pensions and mollycoddling public sector employees are so accustomed to.

Ask them which they would prefer, direct deposit every second Friday? Or chasing some thieving lowlife fare-dodger down a dark alley at three in the morning for the few dollars needed to buy the kids breakfast... or sitting vacant for three hours before being hailed by some mooching schmoo who wants a "deal" on a five dollar trip? Overtime pay anyone? Stat holiday pay? Medical and dental plan? Most of it thanks to the generosity of the taxpayer. Let's put it to the city's cab drivers for a vote.

And best of all, no more "blitzes". No more bylaw Gestapo sneaking up from behind to impose insulting fines for trivial infractions and sudden, unexpected interuptions in income... even if the city's cabs end up looking like it's own pot-hole infested roadways and litter strewn core. What a sad sight all those creaking, rusty Towncars would make.

Or simply turn the cab industry into a subsidized "not-for-profit" transit "service", like DARTS. Preface the move with some bleeding heart leftist slogan like, "Transportation is a fundamental right." Having worked both for DARTS and the Hamilton taxi business I can say I would rather take my chances in one of Hamilton's taxis any day of the week not just because they are probably safer but they also smell a lot better, ETS or not.

And speaking of DARTS, when was the last time the government blitzed DARTS buses? What, never? Why not, you ask? The answer of course, comes in the form of a very simple question: Who ends up looking bad and most of all, who pays?

last modified:Wednesday,March 19, 2008 at 04:40