2 ms·

> "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 tha

by 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.
- baddox 11y ago
  > 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. But that doesn't many any sense. That's a big leap between breaking laws I don't like and breaking laws I do like. The analogy to that quote about Nazis just doesn't exist. > 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. Obviously there are subtle cases and cases where I don't have the necessary information to make a judgement. > Taxi laws are not among them Aren't they? Haven't a lot of taxi laws been changed since Uber started breaking them? I know that Uber operates legally in some jurisdictions under new regulations. > 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. That's certainly not a fact. It's an opinion, and one I absolutely do not share. > And bullets generally work better than arguments for silencing people you disagree with. I don't believe that's true except in cases where there is a large power disparity between groups. > 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. It's not any more self-centered than the notion that democracy is a good way to organize society. After all, in democracies, laws are passed by people who ostensibly represent the population, and thus laws are ostensibly a reflection of what behavior people think is appropriate. Assuming you approve of democracy, you already are promoting the notion that individuals have some credible sense of what behavior is and isn't appropriate.

by baddox 11y ago

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.

baddox 11y ago
> 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. But that doesn't many any sense. That's a big leap between breaking laws I don't like and breaking laws I do like. The analogy to that quote about Nazis just doesn't exist. > 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. Obviously there are subtle cases and cases where I don't have the necessary information to make a judgement. > Taxi laws are not among them Aren't they? Haven't a lot of taxi laws been changed since Uber started breaking them? I know that Uber operates legally in some jurisdictions under new regulations. > 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. That's certainly not a fact. It's an opinion, and one I absolutely do not share. > And bullets generally work better than arguments for silencing people you disagree with. I don't believe that's true except in cases where there is a large power disparity between groups. > 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. It's not any more self-centered than the notion that democracy is a good way to organize society. After all, in democracies, laws are passed by people who ostensibly represent the population, and thus laws are ostensibly a reflection of what behavior people think is appropriate. Assuming you approve of democracy, you already are promoting the notion that individuals have some credible sense of what behavior is and isn't appropriate.