4 ms·

> It erodes trust people have in the rule of law. By showing that some laws are bad? What's wrong with that? I don't think people should have trust in the rule

• TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > By showing that some laws are bad? No. By showing that through breaking them, having enough resources to keep the government at bay. They provide a good service and throw a lot of freebies initially to convince people they're cool, and then when people learn that their local administration is trying to ban/fine Uber, citizens are upset at the officials. Meanwhile taxi drivers ask themselves, why should they follow the law if Uber doesn't have to, and the whole startup ecosystem is looking at Uber as an example of perfect company and trying to replicate their methods. I don't know about you, but I don't want to see breaking the law as the modus operandi of startups in the future. > I don't think people should have trust in the rule of law. In other words, let's just give up on the whole "civilization" thingie, pack our bags and go back to the caves we came from.
  • baddox 11y ago
    > No. By showing that through breaking them, having enough resources to keep the government at bay. I don't think that's bad. I think deliberately breaking bad laws is a reasonable and effective means to get rid of bad laws. > Meanwhile taxi drivers ask themselves, why should they follow the law if Uber doesn't have to, and the whole startup ecosystem is looking at Uber as an example of perfect company and trying to replicate their methods. I think taxi drivers should ask themselves that, even before Uber and its kind existed. > I don't know about you, but I don't want to see breaking the law as the modus operandi of startups in the future. I don't have a problem with it if I don't like the laws that are being broken. > In other words, let's just give up on the whole "civilization" thingie, pack our bags and go back to the caves we came from. Following all laws regardless of their merits is hardly the defining characteristics of civilization.
    • TeMPOraL 11y ago
      > I don't have a problem with it if I don't like the laws that are being broken. "First they came..." No one of us gets to chose which laws are disregarded. We got lucky Uber breaking the rules has a positive outcome for most of us - we get a better service and we don't have to see the immediate externalities. Most of us also haven't been burned by the problem of AirBnB subletting. But what if the next hot SV startup decides to ignore FDA regulations? Because "they're just red tape that stiffles innovation", right? And the next one ignores biotech safety? Do you want to live in the world when any entrepreneur gets to use VC money to blatantly break any law they like? The only Schelling point here is to obey all the laws by default, and in case you don't like some, to use various mechanisms built into the government to try and change them. It's slower, it doesn't generate hot headlines in the press, but it works and it's the right to do. It doesn't work to destabilize the very society that enables your business model. > Following all laws regardless of their merits is hardly the defining characteristics of civilization. It isn't, but following them as a default is, and punishing actors that break the law is too. Even civil disobedience works with expectation that you do get to suffer consequences of breaking the law. Taxi laws may have some problematic parts, but they are nowhere near the category of "so stupid they should have been repelled yesteryear".
      • baddox 11y ago
        > "First they came..." How does that apply? The first group they came for were Socialists, and I already oppose that discrimination. I don't understand how that is at all relevant to my views on breaking bad laws. > But what if the next hot SV startup decides to ignore FDA regulations? If they ignore FDA regulations that I think are bad, then I will approve. If they ignore FDA regulations that I think are good, then I will oppose. That's pretty simple. > Do you want to live in the world when any entrepreneur gets to use VC money to blatantly break any law they like? No, I want to live in a world where entrepreneurs (and indeed everyone) breaks laws that I think are bad. > The only Schelling point here is to obey all the laws by default, and in case you don't like some, to use various mechanisms built into the government to try and change them. I could not disagree more. There are countless laws that we probably both think were incredibly bad which were removed precisely because of organized efforts to break them. > It's slower, it doesn't generate hot headlines in the press, but it works and it's the right to do. I think it's pretty clear that breaking the law works better. I don't care about "generating hot headlines in the press," and I don't agree that obeying the laws is "the right thing to do." > It isn't, but following them as a default is, and punishing actors that break the law is too. I completely disagree. My default is to act in the way I think is appropriate, with no regard for the law except for the obvious threat of punishment if I break a law.