Recently ride-sharing company Uber made the decision to bar both it's drivers and their passengers from carrying guns in their vehicles, even in states where concealed carry is perfectly legal. The decision, made this past Friday on June 19, likely stems from the recent shooting in Charleston, South Carolina, or at least provides a timely cover for it. Logically speaking, there is no reason to think drivers or passengers would be made any more safe by banning guns during rides, particularly when considering that an armed Uber driver recently stopped an attempted mass shooting in Chicago.I don't intend to analyze the logic of Uber's actions in this article. Rather, I intend to look at Uber's hypocritical stance when it comes to dictating the conditions under which their drivers should operate. Many libertarians, including Target Liberty's Robert Wenzel, will quickly point out that Uber is a private company, and should be able to dictate any rules it wishes upon it's drivers as a condition of employment. Wenzel writes:

The libertarian position should be that every person should be free to carry a gun if they choose, and that is it.Further, if a firm wants to ban gun carrying by its employees or on its property that is fine with me.The libertarian position should be respect for private property and for the  non-aggression  principle. It should be silent on rules of individual firms on an issue and what it demands of individuals, as long the demands do not violate NAP.

On the surface, Wenzel is correct. A private firm should, in principle, be able to make rules to ban the carrying of guns by employees while on the job.One problem with this theory? Uber claims it's drivers are not employees.In a recent case in California, a court ruled that an Uber driver, Barbara Ann Berwick, should be classified as an employee of the company while and therefore be reimbursed for 4,152.20 in business expenses related to her time as an Uber driver. Uber maintains that it is merely an app which connects drivers and passengers, and is not an employer of those drivers.I am a big fan of ride-sharing; it has certainly made getting around Los Angeles late at night a lot easier for this Lion. While I don't favor the government dictating any rules to companies, there is something to be said about equality under the law.Why should Uber receive special exemptions in regards to their drivers which many other employers do not?Further, if Uber wants to claim it's drivers are not employees, then the "libertarian position" should be that they have no say whatsoever regarding whether or not those drivers and passengers carry firearms, particularly in states where doing so is perfectly legal.What do you think? Is Uber hypocritical?  Come on by and discuss in the The Lions of Liberty Forum on Facebook!The Lions of Liberty are on Twitter, Facebook & Google+Check out our YouTube Channel!Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!