4 ms·

Anyone complaining about how changing laws destroy businesses, remember that coca cola used to contain cocaine and 7up contained uppers (lithium citrate). Entr

Anyone complaining about how changing laws destroy businesses, remember that coca cola used to contain cocaine and 7up contained uppers (lithium citrate). Entrepreneurship is about making it work within the regulations society think it needs.

neotek 10y ago
Putting aside the rather fatuous examples, how many members of Austin's society do you think would rather have Uber than not have it?
Old_Thrashbarg 10y ago
Entrepreneurship is also about taking on the entrenched incumbents. Usually the incumbents have more political connections they can wield to pass anti-competitive measures that protect their turf.
harel 10y ago
Bad example. Society didn't decide uber is bad for Austin. The council did. I fear the day London black cabs try again to take uber out after they failed before. They fear uber because they actually provide a good service, better than they can at a much better price. Lobbies and unions go a long way unfortunately.
gwright 10y ago
I find this type of assertion with respect to Uber, Lyft, and startups in general uninteresting because it avoids taking a position on the wisdom of the regulations. I realize that there is room for reasonable people to debate as to whether Uber, for example, has played by the existing rules but that is a categorically different discussion as to the value and wisdom of those rules. So there seems to be four positions: 1) the rules are proper and should be followed (status quo) 2) the rules are proper and should not be followed (self contradictory) 3) the rules are improper and should be followed until changed (rule of law) 4) the rules are improper and should be actively resisted (civil disobedience) Arguing in favor of adhering to the rules without taking a position on the propriety of those rules (failing to choose between 1 and 3) is what I find uninteresting. Pick a side and make your case. Even more confusing and destructive to reasonable discussion is asserting that the rules must be followed as a response to someone arguing that the rules should be changed. That is a category error and adds nothing to the discussion.

neotek 10y ago

Putting aside the rather fatuous examples, how many members of Austin's society do you think would rather have Uber than not have it?

Old_Thrashbarg 10y ago

Entrepreneurship is also about taking on the entrenched incumbents. Usually the incumbents have more political connections they can wield to pass anti-competitive measures that protect their turf.

harel 10y ago

Bad example. Society didn't decide uber is bad for Austin. The council did. I fear the day London black cabs try again to take uber out after they failed before. They fear uber because they actually provide a good service, better than they can at a much better price. Lobbies and unions go a long way unfortunately.

gwright 10y ago

I find this type of assertion with respect to Uber, Lyft, and startups in general uninteresting because it avoids taking a position on the wisdom of the regulations. I realize that there is room for reasonable people to debate as to whether Uber, for example, has played by the existing rules but that is a categorically different discussion as to the value and wisdom of those rules. So there seems to be four positions: 1) the rules are proper and should be followed (status quo) 2) the rules are proper and should not be followed (self contradictory) 3) the rules are improper and should be followed until changed (rule of law) 4) the rules are improper and should be actively resisted (civil disobedience) Arguing in favor of adhering to the rules without taking a position on the propriety of those rules (failing to choose between 1 and 3) is what I find uninteresting. Pick a side and make your case. Even more confusing and destructive to reasonable discussion is asserting that the rules must be followed as a response to someone arguing that the rules should be changed. That is a category error and adds nothing to the discussion.