13 ms·
My perspective is the opposite. In a world where large multinationals have the power to evade the law in a deliberate and systematic way like this, it's easy fo
by maldusiecle 10y ago
My perspective is the opposite. In a world where large multinationals have the power to evade the law in a deliberate and systematic way like this, it's easy for governments to claim they need the same kind of power. Things like this are exactly what bureaucrats point to when they make their arguments for a surveillance state.
I don't like the US government much, but I like it a lot better than the average multinational. When it comes down to it, we don't have more than our choice of devils.
- oculusthrift 10y agoi agree with your point about multinationals but this case is more interesting than that. Uber isn't Coca Cola. They essentially used tactics like this to go from plucky underdog to multinational.
- quirkot 10y agoUber was always too shady to be justifiably plucky
- snappyTertle 10y agoUber was justifiably shady. They had to get around outdated laws that protects an outdated medium of transportation.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoNo, they simply went around laws that governed their market in order to outcompete other providers, and they are pretty smug about it. They never discriminated between laws that are obviously obsolete and laws that are still important.
- snappyTertle 10y agoWhich laws were important?
- TeMPOraL 10y agoInsurance laws and employee laws, for starters. And even medallion laws in some places, because they offset the costs cabs incur for being a part of city transportation infrastructure - costs like adapting cars to service elderly and disabled.
- wfo 10y agoThere are a lot of reasons people think Uber is shady beyond just their lawbreaking. Their CEO, their abusive and toxic mysoginist work culture, etc.
- throwaway729 10y agoIn a world where multinationals have the power to evade the law in a deliberate and systematic way, AND the government uses the same techniques to spy on its own people for its own motives, it's easy for individuals to claim that neither group of entities need this kind of coercive power over others. Or at least, it should be.
- bmelton 10y agoI agree with your statements at large, but considering Uber was not aware of any active investigations, they're under no obligation to assist police in enacting a sting. I'm not suggesting that it is, as there are semantically many problems with it, but an argument could be made that this is more of an extension of one's fifth amendment rights to remain silent than it is evading the law. Starting a company to drive people around is (depending on one's interpretation) either presumptively legal or presumptively illegal. Let's assume that many people view it as the former. Is it silly to assume that Uber might have anticipated the Portland government's assumption that it was the latter? What if it were considered legal in every municipality worldwide except for Portland? That doesn't make Portland wrong or right, but at the same time, it doesn't make Uber wrong for the assumption that someone might find it to be presumptively unlawful. I think that there are plenty of valid reasons to hate Uber, but anticipating a law enforcement response to something Uber deemed presumptively lawful seems like a pretty rational set of actions.
- patrickmay 10y ago> an argument could be made that this is more of an extension of one's fifth amendment rights to remain silent than it is evading the law Not to mention freedom of association.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- lacampbell 10y agoI don't like the US government much, but I like it a lot better than the average multinational. When it comes down to it, we don't have more than our choice of devils. If I don't like Uber, I can... stop using Uber. What can I do if I don't like the service a state provides - can I opt out and stop paying? No, my only option is to flee - which the state will often try and prevent you doing anyway. The state is a huge corporation, that will use force to change you for its services, whether they are good or not, or whether you use them or not. Your only option to avoid this involuntary charge s to flee - and the state reserves the right to employ violence to stop you doing even that. It seems pretty clear to me which is more immoral.
- eridius 10y agoDid you just make the argument that the government enforcing the laws is immoral?
- LyndsySimon 10y agoIt looks that way - and for what it's worth, it's not exactly an unprecedented position.
- ahoy 10y agoWelcome to libertarianism.
- Florin_Andrei 10y agoThis is not normal. But on Ayn Rand, it is.
- ska 10y agoLike other drugs many people experiment with in high school, a little won't hurt you but prolonged exposure to Rand can lead to cognitive deficits and antisocial behavior.
- 10y ago
- dnautics 10y agoAs horrible as Uber is, it hasn't done any extrajudicial drone strikes on civilians, yet.
- KirinDave 10y agoAt the rate and escalation of Uber stories we're seeing, you might want to be more cagey juuuust to be safe.
- dredmorbius 10y agoPlenty of corporations have done similar or eqivalent actions.
- dnautics 10y agoOK. No corporation has nuked two cities full of civilians.
- vkou 10y agoNo, but a few have enslaved thousands of people, and worked them to death in coal mines. Long after the Civil War ended. Like, uh, US Steel. [1] [1] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php? storyId=89051115 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics-jan-june12-slavery_02-13/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics-jan-june12-slavery_0...
- TeMPOraL 10y agoLike if nuking was the worst thing the US did fighting Japan. Have you heard about firebombing? That said, plenty of corporations abused and killed innocent people en masse. Some even had their own standing armies to occupy territory.
- dnautics 10y agoYes, I am aware that tokyo (and dresden) firebombing was far worse by pretty much every sane metric than the nukes. Call me when a corporation racks up 100,000 people in a day, when not doing it as a contracting agreement for a government.
- skookumchuck 10y agoThe difference between the government and the corporation is the government can confiscate your property, take your liberty, and end your life. A corporation can do none of those things. A bad government is far, far, far more dangerous than a bad corporation.
- boomboomsubban 10y ago>A corporation can do none of those things. Yes they can, they just need to hide that they're doing it or keep the government on their side.
- skookumchuck 10y agoSome examples that illustrate your assertion, please.
- LnxPrgr3 10y agohttps://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/01/macys-shoplifting-detention-fines-lawsuit-ruling https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/01/macys-shopl... Not killing, but taking of liberty and property through their own extrajudicial system of justice.
- skookumchuck 10y agoAnd a judge ruled that Macy's did not have a legitimate power to do that. This example does not make the case that corporations have such power.
- LnxPrgr3 10y agoThe law did grant them powers to run pieces of this scheme that a judge decided they took way too far. And they got to run it for years before a judge stopped it. And AFAIK no one running Macy's went to jail, so the penalty isn't the same as I'd get if I, say, imprisoned my neighbors and stole their credit cards to get payment for packages I think they stole from the porch.
- omouse 10y agoThe next step is the tech becomes available to everyone; unfortunately that won't happen anytime soon when it's so lucrative to create tools that can only be used large teams and megacorps/multinationals.
- dredmorbius 10y agoYour nation's goverment (whatever that is) is ultimately answerable to you, with very few exeptions.[1] Some corporate entity is not. ________________________________ Notes: 1. As the saying goes, politicians rule at the pleasure of the votors, tyrants rule at the pleasure of the assassins.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]