11 ms·

Unlike in your metaphor, though, both Uber and AirBnB were breaking the law at the time they were founded; those laws were not written in response to them, but

by haldean 10y ago

Unlike in your metaphor, though, both Uber and AirBnB were breaking the law at the time they were founded; those laws were not written in response to them, but to prevent things like them from cropping up.

smsm42 10y ago
It doesn't matter. If GM sponsored a law that won't specifically target Toyota but all cars competing with GM cars, not naming Toyota by name - the argument "it's illegal" would be as disingenuous. It's subverting the meaning of the word to make it serve special interest. We think illegal things are bad, because we assume there are just laws that ban bad things from happening. So if we make a law banning somebody from competing with us, they'd be "illegal" and thus bad. But it's easy to see through this - sometimes "illegal" means just "bad law" and not "bad thing". US has a history of many extremely bad laws, I won't list them because I am sure you can name them by yourself, and even more laws that aren't as bad as those but merely self-serving and protecting some special interest. Laws against Uber and Airbnb usually are of this kind.
- thrownblown 10y ago
  The usa already have a 500% tarrif on Chinese steel. I dont think were gonna get rid of that in the next 4 years.
- ethbro 10y ago
  > So if we make a law banning somebody from competing with us, they'd be "illegal" and thus bad. You're still missing (or strawmanning) the order of the events parent is referring to. An analogy would be closer to the US deciding headlights were a required safety feature. Then at some point after that Chrysler realizes they can duct tape glow sticks to the bonnet and cut costs. Doing so is illegal, they knew it would be illegal, and they still chose to make it their business model. Whether the laws being broken serve a societal purpose is another question, but one that can't be hand waived away by saying "Some laws are bad. AirBnB has legal troubles. Therefore the laws AirBnB is breaking are bad."
  - marssaxman 10y ago
    In this case Chrysler is using shiny new high-tech glowsticks of a sort that nobody had imagined when the laws were written, and they actually do a better job than the legally-mandated electric headlights. Forcing the law to change and catch up with the times can therefore be seen as an important public service.
    - ethbro 10y ago
      It's possible that glowsticks are a better solution to the problem and that the laws should change. After all, glowsticks weren't a technological possibility when it was written. I think the exasperation I (and others) seem to have with AirBnB/Uber/their supporters' sometimes-arguments are that they skip right over the "changing the law" piece. That's a pain in the ass and a lot of drudgery to be sure. But personally, I prefer to live in a society with a moderate amount of respect for the rule of all laws. Because the alternative of getting into a front-on collision at night with an unlit car sucks.
- soufron 10y ago
  The Law is the expression of the People. If they're not happy with the Law, then they just got to get a new one. Good luck to them.
nilved 10y ago
Yeah, those are the laws that shouldn't exist.
- newjersey 10y ago
  > Yeah, those are the laws that shouldn't exist. I absolutely agree. I'm no fan of Uber or Airbnb but I still side with them on a lot of issues (except Uber or airbnb requiring you to accept any and every customer in the name of anti discrimination). I reject the idea that traditional taxis are safer than Uber. I reject the idea that Airbnb makes our communities less secure. My understanding of Airbnb is bringing someone to share my house where they have their own room but I'm still in the building. YMMV when it comes to most Airbnb use cases where the host is in a different state and uses Airbnb full time. The reason I support these companies even though I don't like them is that I feel helpless against the regulatory capture. Taxi service doesn't exist to promote employment of taxi drivers. I think the medallion holders should ask TLC for their money back they paid for their medallions. Screw this whole charade about employment. If the only way to fight against regulatory capture is big companies breaking laws, I fully support big companies breaking those stupid laws. If I were in a jury about any such case, I'd likely vote to acquit.
- sethrin 10y ago
  I recommend going to Panama City, Panama, and finding out what life is like when those laws don't exist. Traffic is miserable, most taxis are in extremely poor repair, the taxi drivers are making next to nothing, and half the time they will either not pick you up if you want to go across town, and/or overcharge you because you don't sound like a local. One of the bigger reasons for medallions is congestion control. For-hire private transportation provides a financial incentive to have more cars on the road. This system will only begin to self-correct after the point of gridlock (assuming that taxis lose money while in gridlock), or not at all (if they get paid to sit in traffic). If that sounds like a future you want, you can go down to Panama and enjoy it any time. If it's all the same to you though I'd prefer not to import third-world living conditions.
- haldean 10y ago
  Then convince people that they shouldn't. Laws aren't written in a vacuum, so clearly other members of your community disagree with you; the right way to approach that is to engage with those who disagree and convince them you're right, not to flagrantly violate the rules.

by haldean 10y ago

smsm42 10y ago

It doesn't matter. If GM sponsored a law that won't specifically target Toyota but all cars competing with GM cars, not naming Toyota by name - the argument "it's illegal" would be as disingenuous. It's subverting the meaning of the word to make it serve special interest. We think illegal things are bad, because we assume there are just laws that ban bad things from happening. So if we make a law banning somebody from competing with us, they'd be "illegal" and thus bad. But it's easy to see through this - sometimes "illegal" means just "bad law" and not "bad thing". US has a history of many extremely bad laws, I won't list them because I am sure you can name them by yourself, and even more laws that aren't as bad as those but merely self-serving and protecting some special interest. Laws against Uber and Airbnb usually are of this kind.

thrownblown 10y ago
The usa already have a 500% tarrif on Chinese steel. I dont think were gonna get rid of that in the next 4 years.
ethbro 10y ago
> So if we make a law banning somebody from competing with us, they'd be "illegal" and thus bad. You're still missing (or strawmanning) the order of the events parent is referring to. An analogy would be closer to the US deciding headlights were a required safety feature. Then at some point after that Chrysler realizes they can duct tape glow sticks to the bonnet and cut costs. Doing so is illegal, they knew it would be illegal, and they still chose to make it their business model. Whether the laws being broken serve a societal purpose is another question, but one that can't be hand waived away by saying "Some laws are bad. AirBnB has legal troubles. Therefore the laws AirBnB is breaking are bad."
- marssaxman 10y ago
  In this case Chrysler is using shiny new high-tech glowsticks of a sort that nobody had imagined when the laws were written, and they actually do a better job than the legally-mandated electric headlights. Forcing the law to change and catch up with the times can therefore be seen as an important public service.
  - ethbro 10y ago
    It's possible that glowsticks are a better solution to the problem and that the laws should change. After all, glowsticks weren't a technological possibility when it was written. I think the exasperation I (and others) seem to have with AirBnB/Uber/their supporters' sometimes-arguments are that they skip right over the "changing the law" piece. That's a pain in the ass and a lot of drudgery to be sure. But personally, I prefer to live in a society with a moderate amount of respect for the rule of all laws. Because the alternative of getting into a front-on collision at night with an unlit car sucks.
soufron 10y ago
The Law is the expression of the People. If they're not happy with the Law, then they just got to get a new one. Good luck to them.

nilved 10y ago

Yeah, those are the laws that shouldn't exist.

newjersey 10y ago
> Yeah, those are the laws that shouldn't exist. I absolutely agree. I'm no fan of Uber or Airbnb but I still side with them on a lot of issues (except Uber or airbnb requiring you to accept any and every customer in the name of anti discrimination). I reject the idea that traditional taxis are safer than Uber. I reject the idea that Airbnb makes our communities less secure. My understanding of Airbnb is bringing someone to share my house where they have their own room but I'm still in the building. YMMV when it comes to most Airbnb use cases where the host is in a different state and uses Airbnb full time. The reason I support these companies even though I don't like them is that I feel helpless against the regulatory capture. Taxi service doesn't exist to promote employment of taxi drivers. I think the medallion holders should ask TLC for their money back they paid for their medallions. Screw this whole charade about employment. If the only way to fight against regulatory capture is big companies breaking laws, I fully support big companies breaking those stupid laws. If I were in a jury about any such case, I'd likely vote to acquit.
sethrin 10y ago
I recommend going to Panama City, Panama, and finding out what life is like when those laws don't exist. Traffic is miserable, most taxis are in extremely poor repair, the taxi drivers are making next to nothing, and half the time they will either not pick you up if you want to go across town, and/or overcharge you because you don't sound like a local. One of the bigger reasons for medallions is congestion control. For-hire private transportation provides a financial incentive to have more cars on the road. This system will only begin to self-correct after the point of gridlock (assuming that taxis lose money while in gridlock), or not at all (if they get paid to sit in traffic). If that sounds like a future you want, you can go down to Panama and enjoy it any time. If it's all the same to you though I'd prefer not to import third-world living conditions.
haldean 10y ago
Then convince people that they shouldn't. Laws aren't written in a vacuum, so clearly other members of your community disagree with you; the right way to approach that is to engage with those who disagree and convince them you're right, not to flagrantly violate the rules.