5 ms·

The article describes deliberate behavior by Uber to circumvent the law of the land. You might not like the law, but if you believe in the principle of rule of

by adamsea 10y ago

The article describes deliberate behavior by Uber to circumvent the law of the land. You might not like the law, but if you believe in the principle of rule of law, then, you should not be OK with this. Otherwise, there's no reason for other companies to, say, pollute the water supply, dump smog into the air, deliver dangerously unsafe foodstuffs or products to consumers, i.e., break the law.

Karunamon 10y ago
This is a dichotomy I reject. Laws should be evaluated on an individual basis, not as a body, otherwise you're logically obligated to be as bothered at people going 51 in a 50 as rape and murder. On top of that, many laws are bogus, pointless, useless, more are actively harmful. Hell, Uber got a start by flaunting a law that had little actual use in the real world save for protecting monopolists with very flimsy pretenses. You probably flaunt the speed limit on a daily basis commuting to work because the alternative is less safe and less efficient for all concerned. Let's not pretend that ignoring useless laws is a slight against some broader philosophical concept.
- leephillips 10y ago
  "Uber got a start by flaunting a law" "You probably flaunt the speed limit" Probably not what you intended to say. More substantially, I think the licensing regulations for taxis (that's what you have in mind, no?) are far from obviously of "little actual use". This would vary greatly by region; I understand that London and Tokyo, for example, require taxi drivers to prove familiarity with their city's layout before being allowed to take passengers. Maybe this is to enforce a monopoly, or maybe it's for the benefit of the public. It's at least debatable.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    Right, but the fact that it's debatable at all means that you don't automatically get to automatically classify breaking a law as a moral evil.
    - leephillips 10y ago
      Oh, I agree. But I would consider a business moving into an area and gaining a competitive advantage by violating local laws that constrain their competitors to be some kind of breach of the social contract, and just not cricket. If that's in fact what Uber has done - I'm not really conversant with all the details. I don't think I have an inordinate respect for the law, but I also don't think that "but the law is stupid" is a convincing defense here.
      - wonder_er 10y ago
        The "social contract" theory is pretty hard to defend. Lots of people have tried, few have succeeded. I'm just about to finish up _The Problem of Political Authority_ [0] and the author (Prof at Colorado University - Boulder) gives the social contract an _excellent_ rundown. TL;DR: There is no social contract. It's a politically useful idea not rooted in moral law. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Political-Authority-Examination-Coerce/dp/1137281650 https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Political-Authority-Examinati...
NotSammyHagar 10y ago
I disagree that this is a great thing. I want to see reasonable behavior. I don't appreciate when businesses are basically out there to cheat me by any means they can conceive (offering me a different price than that guy beside me because they captured the mac address on my phone when I went into a fancy store, say).

by adamsea 10y ago

Karunamon 10y ago

This is a dichotomy I reject. Laws should be evaluated on an individual basis, not as a body, otherwise you're logically obligated to be as bothered at people going 51 in a 50 as rape and murder. On top of that, many laws are bogus, pointless, useless, more are actively harmful. Hell, Uber got a start by flaunting a law that had little actual use in the real world save for protecting monopolists with very flimsy pretenses. You probably flaunt the speed limit on a daily basis commuting to work because the alternative is less safe and less efficient for all concerned. Let's not pretend that ignoring useless laws is a slight against some broader philosophical concept.

leephillips 10y ago
"Uber got a start by flaunting a law" "You probably flaunt the speed limit" Probably not what you intended to say. More substantially, I think the licensing regulations for taxis (that's what you have in mind, no?) are far from obviously of "little actual use". This would vary greatly by region; I understand that London and Tokyo, for example, require taxi drivers to prove familiarity with their city's layout before being allowed to take passengers. Maybe this is to enforce a monopoly, or maybe it's for the benefit of the public. It's at least debatable.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  Right, but the fact that it's debatable at all means that you don't automatically get to automatically classify breaking a law as a moral evil.
  - leephillips 10y ago
    Oh, I agree. But I would consider a business moving into an area and gaining a competitive advantage by violating local laws that constrain their competitors to be some kind of breach of the social contract, and just not cricket. If that's in fact what Uber has done - I'm not really conversant with all the details. I don't think I have an inordinate respect for the law, but I also don't think that "but the law is stupid" is a convincing defense here.
    - wonder_er 10y ago
      The "social contract" theory is pretty hard to defend. Lots of people have tried, few have succeeded. I'm just about to finish up _The Problem of Political Authority_ [0] and the author (Prof at Colorado University - Boulder) gives the social contract an _excellent_ rundown. TL;DR: There is no social contract. It's a politically useful idea not rooted in moral law. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Political-Authority-Examination-Coerce/dp/1137281650 https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Political-Authority-Examinati...

NotSammyHagar 10y ago

I disagree that this is a great thing. I want to see reasonable behavior. I don't appreciate when businesses are basically out there to cheat me by any means they can conceive (offering me a different price than that guy beside me because they captured the mac address on my phone when I went into a fancy store, say).