2 ms·

> 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

• 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.
    • TeMPOraL 11y ago
      >> "First they came..." > How does that apply? First they broke the laws that you didn't like, so you didn't care. Then they destroyed laws you didn't care about, so you didn't question that too. Then they started to destroy the laws you like, and by that time it was too late to stop it, because momentum was too big. > No, I want to live in a world where entrepreneurs (and indeed everyone) breaks laws that I think are bad. But can you be sure to always think the law is bad when it is indeed bad, and not only when you're on the worse end of it? Laws have to balance the need of the many. For instance, an owner of a chemical plant may think it's absolutely stupid and bad law that he can't dump toxic waste into the local river. > There are countless laws that we probably both think were incredibly bad which were removed precisely because of organized efforts to break them. Taxi laws are not among them, and here we're not talking about activists taking a moral high ground, but about a company with strong antisocial tendencies in its DNA that tries to do a money grab. There are ways and procedures for giving feedback about the law, and even if sometimes you have to break it, it doesn't change the fact that for a civilized society, the default should always be to follow the law even if you don't like it. > I think it's pretty clear that breaking the law works better. And bullets generally work better than arguments for silencing people you disagree with. And yet for some reason we don't go around shooting each other over disputes. > 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. I really hope you're a god, for whom every appropriate action is the one that creates most good in the world, because you're expressing a very self-centered view. And we know very well that unrestricted following of self-interest leads to misery of everyone. That's why we have laws and social customs in the first place.