> That's a possibility. U/L didn't get their message across to the public and the public voted against them. Occam's razor.

It's vanishingly unlikely that the incumbents wouldn't win the election (get their way) when they've been propagandizing to the people.

> You seem to be concluding that the decision made by the city is morally wrong. Many things end up this way in the world, and we manage to move forward in spite of the world's imperfections

It feels like you keep trying to make this something spiritual.

I'm saying the decision is wrong because it's a bad strategy predicated on a mistaken risk analysis used because of lies. That's inefficient and will, almost by definition, be the consolation prize. Something designed as a negotiation with taxi companies who were asked "How much competition do you want?"

>> No, when companies advertise to me they aren't reaching into my pocket to do so.

> There was a vote..

On a heavily propagandized and scaremongered issue which make it essentially meaningless as an indicator of the people's true feelings.

> Flooding them with pro-U/L or pro-fingerprint messages is just a means of sharing information.

No, not really.

And the main issue is that they used the taxpayers own money to advertise and justify the city's side - which was actually mostly lies.

> People make up their own minds.

So no, they really don't. Not when the government itself is selling them messages of rape and terrorism.

> Voters would be offended if you told them they were too mindless to interpret the facts in the right way.

That's very meta-liberal of you to be offended for people who would be offended if only they knew. Especially because the insult was yours.

My contention is that the facts are hidden, and worse, are lies from people they should be able to trust.

You're the one making the implication that being fooled must be shameful.

> We can also find agreement without money exchanging hands. It might not be exactly what you or I had in mind at the outset of the meeting but it's something.

Concessions are as good as cash. That sidesteps the issue of why, and how there's no good reason.

> You and I agree that perceptions, or context around facts

In this context (hah), context means additional facts. Yes, a bullet hole, but also IN a person.

> People interpret facts depending on the context.

And in this context, you're referring to emotional context, and what these people are doing isn't valid reasoning. They're reacting differently to the same stimuli because of unrelated historical events (the propaganda.)

> I also still think you're overlooking how Americans feel about security. They want the best there is.

No, I don't. I work in a similar industry. And no they don't, they want easy choices.

If you ask people what they want they'll say the best, and if you watch them they'll choose the cheapest, but they're happiest when an seemingly affordable option says "Guaranteed" because it frees them of the responsibility to think.

> Either way the perception is the driving force.

Yes, and in this case the very experts we elect to help us reason about this are lying to us, intentionally shaping these all-important perceptions. Then they're polling us right after the 10-minute hate and using those results to drive decision by consensus.

It's meaningless, except that it's being used to steal from all of us.