9 ms·

> I don't see how any entity (including Uber) has an obligation to make it easy for the law to ticket them. Corporate citizens have an obligation to obey the l

> I don't see how any entity (including Uber) has an obligation to make it easy for the law to ticket them. Corporate citizens have an obligation to obey the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate. If they find the laws unacceptable, they should lobby to have them changed.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
hype7 10y ago
Herein lies the source of the disagreement. We are all better off because uber willfully disregarded these laws and regulations. These laws once had a good reason, but are now still on the books only because incumbents have regulators in their pockets. As for lobbying to have the laws changed, if you expect startups to be able to lobby in every jurisdiction to get the law changed against incumbents when the regulators often come from the industry the startup is disrupting, then I got a bridge to sell you.
- Qworg 10y ago
  We're all better off? That's an incredibly broad statement. The laws on the books still exist for a good reason. Even if you feel that Uber is somehow exempt/makes good choices with the people it chooses to employ via the platform, does that apply to any other "uber-esque" groups with more lax enforcement?
  - jccooper 10y ago
    "The laws on the books still exist for a good reason." That's... optimistic. Many laws were put in place to benefit other (incumbent) businesses, or in reaction to conditions that no longer hold, or due to ideas proven false or at least no longer fashionable. That's not necessarily good reason to break the law (though sometimes it is), but anyone shold feel free to lobby for removal or change of a law.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  > We are all better off because uber willfully disregarded these laws and regulations. The thing is, we're not. What we've got is a cab company that can offer better and cheaper service than everyone else because it's breaking the law, and it's good at throwing VC money at lawyers to avoid the consequences. What we've got is further damage to the respect for the rule of law and thus to the fabric of civilization, as people see how Uber gets away with illegal activities. Hell, there are many people who are inspired by their antisocial behaviour, and see Uber as an example to follow.
  - vinceguidry 10y ago
    Really though we are. Even if Uber goes out of business, taxi companies are going to get wise that customers want the Uber experience and all of a sudden they'll all have to get apps to compete. Uber broke a status quo in the state of the transportation industry and we should all be grateful for that. They also became a champion for a certain type of activism that I think a lot of us would like to see more of. Think carefully before you deny Uber the activist label. Using ethically shady methods to push through social agendas is precisely what activism is. Not everyone falls on the same side of the line, but you can't not call it activism. Labor strikes were considered extremely problematic to many.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      I have a perspective of an European. Here on the Old Continent, we've already had that "Uber experience", and it didn't require companies to blatantly ignore the law and burn money to keep regulators at bay (not to say there weren't regulatory tensions, but they quickly got resolved in courts and regulations were updated; that's how a civilized society is supposed to work). So excuse me if I don't see Uber as innovative. As for their activism, this is the flavour we know from dystopian movies about evil corporations disregarding the laws to eke out some profits. In a way, I can't wait for an Uber in biotech sector - maybe a small engineered pandemic is what people need to understand that regulations should not be ignored on a whim by companies seeking profits.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
jlarocco 10y ago
I agree they have an obligation to obey the law. I disagree that they should lobby to change it. I understand that realistically that is what they will do, but I don't think it's the ethically correct thing. Laws are in place to benefit all of society, they shouldn't be changed on behalf of specific corporations, regardless of how much money the "donate".
- avehn 10y ago
  Laws are in place to benefit those in power not "all of society," as anyone who does not benefit from them can attest to. And I agree, corporations cannot be allowed to change the laws to suit them.
  - nohugsneeded 10y ago
    well, corporations can't change laws. They can only lobby. And laws are passed by the majority to benefit a majority, that's how a democracy works.
    - odbol 10y ago
      If only we lived in an actual democracy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig
    - AstralStorm 10y ago
      Laws are passed by a tiny percentage of the population, alleged (not necessarily de facto) representatives of the interests of majority. So not confuse republic with a direct democracy.
  - fjdlwlv 10y ago
    In a democracy, the voters are the ones in power
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  So you oppose Apple and other tech companies lobbying for gay and transgender rights? Or Google lobbying for net neutrality?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
adventured 10y ago
You'll find that the same argument gets thrown entirely out the window conveniently depending on a person's specific beliefs on any given issue. It's barely even built on sand as a premise. See: racism and discrimination broadly, segregation, refugees, illegal immigration, unions / union strikes, marijuana, political corruption, cartels, government protected monopolies and so on. There are a vast number of topics that cause people at businesses to be willing to disregard the laws of a given jurisdiction at various points in time (regardless of whether one views the position as being on the moral side or not). It'd be hard to claim that it never makes sense to disobey the law for a business, given just the last century of history in just the developed world, with the plentiful display of wildly irrational or immoral laws that have existed.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
Do regular citizens, such as Rosa Parks, not have the same obligation? Personally I consider civil disobedience of unjust laws to be acceptable, for either a single person or for an organized group of people (such as Uber).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- pikzen 10y ago
  >comparing Rosa Parks, who fought for civil rights to Uber, who actively contributes to undermining worker's rights in over 20 countries. only on HN
  - mentat 10y ago
    They're making the important point that what people really mean is "laws I agree or don't agree with" not "laws". Hopefully not only on HN do people have reflective capacity to see this.
  - nohugsneeded 10y ago
    Its worse on Reddit
- cozzyd 10y ago
  Yeah good point, Rosa Parks also made billions from her civil disobedience.
- camus2 10y ago
  Yeah, Rosa Parks civil disobedience was a for profit operation! Please stop insulting her. Uber is the embodiment of corporate evil, these people think they are above the law.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    I didn't say she made a profit. I said she broke a law she felt was unjust, same as Uber, and that according to ForHackernews' reasoning she should not have done this. My point is that his reasoning is wrong, and merely a post-hoc rationalization for general dislike of Uber. I did not make the comparison you seem to be arguing against, namely that Rosa Parks and Uber are equivalent in all possible ways.
charlesdm 10y ago
> Corporate citizens have an obligation to obey the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate. To some extent. If the fine is $50 for each infraction, and you have $10bn in the bank, you really don't have to obey the law. You can lobby to have the law changed and not obey the law (if you are willing to pay any and all fines, while you are lobbying). Uber's use case didn't exist 10+ years ago, and as such, most laws weren't made for that not set up to account for that. I personally find that to be a valid example of where it's acceptable not to follow the law.
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  > To some extent. what?!?? no, you have always have an obligation to. Being obliged doesn't mean you're going to, but you do have an obligation. > I personally find that to be a valid example of where it's applicable not to follow the law oh great, now we all get to decide what laws we will or won't follow. is that really the precedent you are arguing for?
  - charlesdm 10y ago
    You've never jaywalked in your life then, right? The law is generally something that evolves, because the world evolves.
odbol 10y ago
Let's also acknowledge that it's not just Uber the company skirting the law, it's also the millions of people who use their service. The people have spoken with their dollars instead of their votes.
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  lets also acknowledge that there are billions of people who are using their dollars to vote against uber by taking taxis, use lyft, take public transportation, purchae cars, walk, or ride their bike. in other words, thats a terrible argument in support of uber.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

hype7 10y ago

Herein lies the source of the disagreement. We are all better off because uber willfully disregarded these laws and regulations. These laws once had a good reason, but are now still on the books only because incumbents have regulators in their pockets. As for lobbying to have the laws changed, if you expect startups to be able to lobby in every jurisdiction to get the law changed against incumbents when the regulators often come from the industry the startup is disrupting, then I got a bridge to sell you.

Qworg 10y ago
We're all better off? That's an incredibly broad statement. The laws on the books still exist for a good reason. Even if you feel that Uber is somehow exempt/makes good choices with the people it chooses to employ via the platform, does that apply to any other "uber-esque" groups with more lax enforcement?
- jccooper 10y ago
  "The laws on the books still exist for a good reason." That's... optimistic. Many laws were put in place to benefit other (incumbent) businesses, or in reaction to conditions that no longer hold, or due to ideas proven false or at least no longer fashionable. That's not necessarily good reason to break the law (though sometimes it is), but anyone shold feel free to lobby for removal or change of a law.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
> We are all better off because uber willfully disregarded these laws and regulations. The thing is, we're not. What we've got is a cab company that can offer better and cheaper service than everyone else because it's breaking the law, and it's good at throwing VC money at lawyers to avoid the consequences. What we've got is further damage to the respect for the rule of law and thus to the fabric of civilization, as people see how Uber gets away with illegal activities. Hell, there are many people who are inspired by their antisocial behaviour, and see Uber as an example to follow.
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  Really though we are. Even if Uber goes out of business, taxi companies are going to get wise that customers want the Uber experience and all of a sudden they'll all have to get apps to compete. Uber broke a status quo in the state of the transportation industry and we should all be grateful for that. They also became a champion for a certain type of activism that I think a lot of us would like to see more of. Think carefully before you deny Uber the activist label. Using ethically shady methods to push through social agendas is precisely what activism is. Not everyone falls on the same side of the line, but you can't not call it activism. Labor strikes were considered extremely problematic to many.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    I have a perspective of an European. Here on the Old Continent, we've already had that "Uber experience", and it didn't require companies to blatantly ignore the law and burn money to keep regulators at bay (not to say there weren't regulatory tensions, but they quickly got resolved in courts and regulations were updated; that's how a civilized society is supposed to work). So excuse me if I don't see Uber as innovative. As for their activism, this is the flavour we know from dystopian movies about evil corporations disregarding the laws to eke out some profits. In a way, I can't wait for an Uber in biotech sector - maybe a small engineered pandemic is what people need to understand that regulations should not be ignored on a whim by companies seeking profits.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago

jlarocco 10y ago

I agree they have an obligation to obey the law. I disagree that they should lobby to change it. I understand that realistically that is what they will do, but I don't think it's the ethically correct thing. Laws are in place to benefit all of society, they shouldn't be changed on behalf of specific corporations, regardless of how much money the "donate".

avehn 10y ago
Laws are in place to benefit those in power not "all of society," as anyone who does not benefit from them can attest to. And I agree, corporations cannot be allowed to change the laws to suit them.
- nohugsneeded 10y ago
  well, corporations can't change laws. They can only lobby. And laws are passed by the majority to benefit a majority, that's how a democracy works.
  - odbol 10y ago
    If only we lived in an actual democracy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig
  - AstralStorm 10y ago
    Laws are passed by a tiny percentage of the population, alleged (not necessarily de facto) representatives of the interests of majority. So not confuse republic with a direct democracy.
- fjdlwlv 10y ago
  In a democracy, the voters are the ones in power
yummyfajitas 10y ago
So you oppose Apple and other tech companies lobbying for gay and transgender rights? Or Google lobbying for net neutrality?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

adventured 10y ago

You'll find that the same argument gets thrown entirely out the window conveniently depending on a person's specific beliefs on any given issue. It's barely even built on sand as a premise. See: racism and discrimination broadly, segregation, refugees, illegal immigration, unions / union strikes, marijuana, political corruption, cartels, government protected monopolies and so on. There are a vast number of topics that cause people at businesses to be willing to disregard the laws of a given jurisdiction at various points in time (regardless of whether one views the position as being on the moral side or not). It'd be hard to claim that it never makes sense to disobey the law for a business, given just the last century of history in just the developed world, with the plentiful display of wildly irrational or immoral laws that have existed.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Do regular citizens, such as Rosa Parks, not have the same obligation? Personally I consider civil disobedience of unjust laws to be acceptable, for either a single person or for an organized group of people (such as Uber).

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
pikzen 10y ago
>comparing Rosa Parks, who fought for civil rights to Uber, who actively contributes to undermining worker's rights in over 20 countries. only on HN
- mentat 10y ago
  They're making the important point that what people really mean is "laws I agree or don't agree with" not "laws". Hopefully not only on HN do people have reflective capacity to see this.
- nohugsneeded 10y ago
  Its worse on Reddit
cozzyd 10y ago
Yeah good point, Rosa Parks also made billions from her civil disobedience.
camus2 10y ago
Yeah, Rosa Parks civil disobedience was a for profit operation! Please stop insulting her. Uber is the embodiment of corporate evil, these people think they are above the law.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I didn't say she made a profit. I said she broke a law she felt was unjust, same as Uber, and that according to ForHackernews' reasoning she should not have done this. My point is that his reasoning is wrong, and merely a post-hoc rationalization for general dislike of Uber. I did not make the comparison you seem to be arguing against, namely that Rosa Parks and Uber are equivalent in all possible ways.

charlesdm 10y ago

> Corporate citizens have an obligation to obey the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate. To some extent. If the fine is $50 for each infraction, and you have $10bn in the bank, you really don't have to obey the law. You can lobby to have the law changed and not obey the law (if you are willing to pay any and all fines, while you are lobbying). Uber's use case didn't exist 10+ years ago, and as such, most laws weren't made for that not set up to account for that. I personally find that to be a valid example of where it's acceptable not to follow the law.

wheelerwj 10y ago
> To some extent. what?!?? no, you have always have an obligation to. Being obliged doesn't mean you're going to, but you do have an obligation. > I personally find that to be a valid example of where it's applicable not to follow the law oh great, now we all get to decide what laws we will or won't follow. is that really the precedent you are arguing for?
- charlesdm 10y ago
  You've never jaywalked in your life then, right? The law is generally something that evolves, because the world evolves.

odbol 10y ago

Let's also acknowledge that it's not just Uber the company skirting the law, it's also the millions of people who use their service. The people have spoken with their dollars instead of their votes.

wheelerwj 10y ago
lets also acknowledge that there are billions of people who are using their dollars to vote against uber by taking taxis, use lyft, take public transportation, purchae cars, walk, or ride their bike. in other words, thats a terrible argument in support of uber.