4 ms·

Breaking rules to set up a sham business that scams and steals is one thing (and often the reason the rules exist). Breaking rules to create a product that mos

by jobu 10y ago

Breaking rules to set up a sham business that scams and steals is one thing (and often the reason the rules exist). Breaking rules to create a product that most people like and find better than the alternative is completely different. Unfortunately many of the laws created in the name of "consumer protection" do little to protect anything but the entrenched interests that lobbied for the laws.

Macsenour 10y ago
An example might be Tesla and some states law requiring a dealership in the state. If I am recalling that correctly...
- bskap 10y ago
  In Tesla's case, the laws were created specifically to block them. They didn't exist when Tesla started. The previous laws on the books were more along the lines of "if you have dealers, you can't sell direct" rather than a general "you must sell through dealers"
  - Macsenour 10y ago
    Thanks for the clarification.
mbesto 10y ago
How precisely do you determine which rules are breakable for a product/service that is "better than the alternative"? I'd love to stay in a hotel and not pay hotel taxes, as would Marriott, so I use AirBnb instead. I'd also like to present fake receipts for reimbursement to my employer so I can make more money. Both are "alternative products" that are better for me, but someone else suffers. EDIT: Grammar.
- stale2002 10y ago
  You determine it on a case by case basis. There is no need to have a perfect system for handling all situations with bad laws and which should be broken. Humans have brains, we should use them to determine that question for ourselves.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    The issue with this, of course, is that people have to know what's legal and what isn't. It's not equitable if we allow Google but we don't allow Bing, for example. From this principle arises stare decisis. Thus, under our current system, law becomes written one way or the other. It's very difficult to find the right balance between equity and flexibility.
  - mbesto 10y ago
    > There is no need to have a perfect system for handling all situations with bad laws and which should be broken. If it was that easy, wouldn't we have made and edited the laws already to align to that?
    - stale2002 10y ago
      What I'm saying is is that the existing system is working pretty well, IMO. Using Uber as an example, what they do is they just move into a new markets regardless of the current regulations. Most of the time, the regulators are extremely slow to act, and by the time they get around to acting, Uber has already won the hearts and minds of consumers. And then the regulators try to act against Uber, until there is massive push back from consumers. This massive push back ends up scaring the regulators into changing the law in Uber's favor, and Uber never ends up being regulated, even though they blatantly broke the law in the first place. And BAM, Uber wins in the vast majority of situations. This strategy only works though because the laws are bad in the first place, and Uber is making the industry a much better place for consumers.
- GVIrish 10y ago
  I think that's a great question and to me it gets down to, 'What are the negative consequences or externalities created by breaking the rule(s)?' With a mining company non-compliance could poison water supplies and sicken/kill people. With Uber (and a lot of the sharing companies) they can cheat workers out of the protections they would normally receive with a job. On the other side with Tesla, selling directly to consumers doesn't hurt consumers at all, but it does create a slightly uneven playing field with incumbent manufacturers who have to sell through dealerships. With Uber, customers tend to get a better service but it creates an unfair playing field with taxi companies, who have to pay an enormous amount of money for medallions while adhering to tightly regulated fares. From the government's standpoint, there's usually some amount of discretion in enforcement of the law. Laws that protect people from harm should be pursued more vigorously than laws that maybe protect old business models more than they protect actual consumers.
cookiecaper 10y ago
Yes, the legal situation has become un-navigable. Many online businesses, even big players like Google, are based on flagrant violations of existing law (in Google's case: copyright and CFAA). Little guys get shut down by this all the time. Congress is not effective and can't be trusted to rectify the situation. The only viable option is to be a pragmatist about compliance and hope that you don't encounter bad legal luck.

by jobu 10y ago

Macsenour 10y ago

An example might be Tesla and some states law requiring a dealership in the state. If I am recalling that correctly...

bskap 10y ago
In Tesla's case, the laws were created specifically to block them. They didn't exist when Tesla started. The previous laws on the books were more along the lines of "if you have dealers, you can't sell direct" rather than a general "you must sell through dealers"
- Macsenour 10y ago
  Thanks for the clarification.

mbesto 10y ago

How precisely do you determine which rules are breakable for a product/service that is "better than the alternative"? I'd love to stay in a hotel and not pay hotel taxes, as would Marriott, so I use AirBnb instead. I'd also like to present fake receipts for reimbursement to my employer so I can make more money. Both are "alternative products" that are better for me, but someone else suffers. EDIT: Grammar.

stale2002 10y ago
You determine it on a case by case basis. There is no need to have a perfect system for handling all situations with bad laws and which should be broken. Humans have brains, we should use them to determine that question for ourselves.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  The issue with this, of course, is that people have to know what's legal and what isn't. It's not equitable if we allow Google but we don't allow Bing, for example. From this principle arises stare decisis. Thus, under our current system, law becomes written one way or the other. It's very difficult to find the right balance between equity and flexibility.
- mbesto 10y ago
  > There is no need to have a perfect system for handling all situations with bad laws and which should be broken. If it was that easy, wouldn't we have made and edited the laws already to align to that?
  - stale2002 10y ago
    What I'm saying is is that the existing system is working pretty well, IMO. Using Uber as an example, what they do is they just move into a new markets regardless of the current regulations. Most of the time, the regulators are extremely slow to act, and by the time they get around to acting, Uber has already won the hearts and minds of consumers. And then the regulators try to act against Uber, until there is massive push back from consumers. This massive push back ends up scaring the regulators into changing the law in Uber's favor, and Uber never ends up being regulated, even though they blatantly broke the law in the first place. And BAM, Uber wins in the vast majority of situations. This strategy only works though because the laws are bad in the first place, and Uber is making the industry a much better place for consumers.
GVIrish 10y ago
I think that's a great question and to me it gets down to, 'What are the negative consequences or externalities created by breaking the rule(s)?' With a mining company non-compliance could poison water supplies and sicken/kill people. With Uber (and a lot of the sharing companies) they can cheat workers out of the protections they would normally receive with a job. On the other side with Tesla, selling directly to consumers doesn't hurt consumers at all, but it does create a slightly uneven playing field with incumbent manufacturers who have to sell through dealerships. With Uber, customers tend to get a better service but it creates an unfair playing field with taxi companies, who have to pay an enormous amount of money for medallions while adhering to tightly regulated fares. From the government's standpoint, there's usually some amount of discretion in enforcement of the law. Laws that protect people from harm should be pursued more vigorously than laws that maybe protect old business models more than they protect actual consumers.

cookiecaper 10y ago

Yes, the legal situation has become un-navigable. Many online businesses, even big players like Google, are based on flagrant violations of existing law (in Google's case: copyright and CFAA). Little guys get shut down by this all the time. Congress is not effective and can't be trusted to rectify the situation. The only viable option is to be a pragmatist about compliance and hope that you don't encounter bad legal luck.