5 ms·

To me this seems like a reasonable response. Rules have been violated, and in a society with a rule of law there has to be consequences.

nickff 10y ago
'Rule of law' generally refers more to how laws are written and interpreted in general, rather than whether they are enforced in one specific instance.[1] I would argue that the way Uber, AirBNB, and other similar companies are being treated is in violation of the 'rule of law'. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  It's hard to tell from the auto-translation of Norwegian, but weren't these drivers not paying taxes and not licensed to be a taxi?
  - nickff 10y ago
    It seems that they are not paying 'licensing' fees/taxes, though I (much like you) am not sure because of the translation. I generally believe that most licenses that raise revenue for the government violate the rule of law, especially when they are issued on a political or non-safety related bases.
    - duskwuff 10y ago
      I'm not sure what you believe the phrase "rule of law" means, but it seems to be something other than its common definition.
      - nickff 10y ago
        My definition of rule of law is a common one where: 1) Laws must be known by all who are governed by them (i.e. there cannot be secret laws) 2) The enforcement of laws must be foreseeable and predictable (i.e. laws should not be interpreted or enforced differently over time) 3) Laws should be enforced equally against all those subject to the law (i.e. there should be no exemptions) I would argue that 'sharing economy' companies have been subjected to abrogations of 2 and 3 in many jurisdictions, and I fail to see how this specific enforcement action proves that any of these principles are being upheld. I appear to be in the minority, and a great number of people seem to believe that I am factually incorrect.
- simonh 10y ago
  The rule of law is entirely about whether and how laws are enforced. If laws are only enforced at the whim of officials or the personal preference of judges, or can be re-interpreted arbitrarily then the laws does not rule, those individuals rule. In order to have a rule of law you need laws that are for the most part applied evenly and fairly to all. In San Francisco when Uber started the law said that only licensed taxis could pock up passengers that hailed them on the street. Uber cars didn't do that, so they were legal. I've no problem with that. Good for them! In Norway it's apparently illegal for unlicensed drivers without specific insurance to carry passengers in return for money. I don't see how anybody can argue that these drivers didn't break the law.
  - nickff 10y ago
    I am not sure what your experiences are with respect to taxi and hotel licenses, but my understanding is that they are generally granted in limited numbers to politically powerful entities in exchange for campaign contributions and a tax on the oligopoly rents. Taxi licenses would comply with the rule of law iff they were freely available to anyone who met the safety and service criteria. edit: Parent has been edited significantly since I posted my reply, but I will not change mine.
    - msbarnett 10y ago
      > Taxi licenses would comply with the rule of law iff they were freely available to anyone who met the safety and service criteria. You seem to be mistaking "the rule of law" for what are simply your ideological preferences.
      - nickff 10y ago
        No, from Wikipedia: >"The Oxford English Dictionary has defined "rule of law" this way:[2] The authority and influence of law in society, esp. when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behaviour; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes."
rebootthesystem 10y ago
> Rules have been violated, and in a society with a rule of law there has to be consequences. I find this interesting because people will apply this type of thinking to one area and almost exactly the opposite to others. In other words, yeah, there are laws/rules but it is OK to violate them or have no consequences. One obvious example of this is the hotly debated illegal immigration issue in the US. US law clearly establishes what is required in order to emigrate to this country legally. And it further establishes that this legal status is the only way to live and work here permanently. If we live by this idea that "in a society with a rule of law there has to be consequences" the US ought to deport millions of people (or otherwise impose severe-enough penalties). BTW, I am not picking on you, you are not the only person to utter these words. I am referring to the general use of this position rather than your use of it. And, BTW #2, I don't for a moment believe we ought to deport everyone. Many questions here: What is "the rule of law"? When can or should laws be ignored? Who decides? If a law was a law (not being ignored) at the time the transgression took place and we desire to live where "in a society with a rule of law there has to be consequences" should these consequences be applied regardless of how we might feel today? If rules or laws can be selectively applied or ignored at any time in the future, could one make the argument that they are effectively not rules or laws and one, as an individual, is free to ignore them? If they are not serious enough that they can be ignored, why should anyone take them seriously? Do laws mean anything if they are not enforced consistently and uniformly across the population? For example: Why do I have to pay taxes if people are allowed to remain in the country illegally? Both are laws. One is applied uniformly. The other isn't. I am not passing judgement on immigrants here, these are easy examples to reach for. Complex subject, isn't it?
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  Deporting millions of people means less rule of law, not more. There's very significant trade-offs - deportation on that scale can and will intimidate folks into not accessing the legal system, which creates a class of ready-made vulnerable victims and un-reported crimes.
  - qeternity 10y ago

nickff 10y ago

'Rule of law' generally refers more to how laws are written and interpreted in general, rather than whether they are enforced in one specific instance.[1] I would argue that the way Uber, AirBNB, and other similar companies are being treated is in violation of the 'rule of law'. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

oh_sigh 10y ago
It's hard to tell from the auto-translation of Norwegian, but weren't these drivers not paying taxes and not licensed to be a taxi?
- nickff 10y ago
  It seems that they are not paying 'licensing' fees/taxes, though I (much like you) am not sure because of the translation. I generally believe that most licenses that raise revenue for the government violate the rule of law, especially when they are issued on a political or non-safety related bases.
  - duskwuff 10y ago
    I'm not sure what you believe the phrase "rule of law" means, but it seems to be something other than its common definition.
    - nickff 10y ago
      My definition of rule of law is a common one where: 1) Laws must be known by all who are governed by them (i.e. there cannot be secret laws) 2) The enforcement of laws must be foreseeable and predictable (i.e. laws should not be interpreted or enforced differently over time) 3) Laws should be enforced equally against all those subject to the law (i.e. there should be no exemptions) I would argue that 'sharing economy' companies have been subjected to abrogations of 2 and 3 in many jurisdictions, and I fail to see how this specific enforcement action proves that any of these principles are being upheld. I appear to be in the minority, and a great number of people seem to believe that I am factually incorrect.
simonh 10y ago
The rule of law is entirely about whether and how laws are enforced. If laws are only enforced at the whim of officials or the personal preference of judges, or can be re-interpreted arbitrarily then the laws does not rule, those individuals rule. In order to have a rule of law you need laws that are for the most part applied evenly and fairly to all. In San Francisco when Uber started the law said that only licensed taxis could pock up passengers that hailed them on the street. Uber cars didn't do that, so they were legal. I've no problem with that. Good for them! In Norway it's apparently illegal for unlicensed drivers without specific insurance to carry passengers in return for money. I don't see how anybody can argue that these drivers didn't break the law.
- nickff 10y ago
  I am not sure what your experiences are with respect to taxi and hotel licenses, but my understanding is that they are generally granted in limited numbers to politically powerful entities in exchange for campaign contributions and a tax on the oligopoly rents. Taxi licenses would comply with the rule of law iff they were freely available to anyone who met the safety and service criteria. edit: Parent has been edited significantly since I posted my reply, but I will not change mine.
  - msbarnett 10y ago
    > Taxi licenses would comply with the rule of law iff they were freely available to anyone who met the safety and service criteria. You seem to be mistaking "the rule of law" for what are simply your ideological preferences.
    - nickff 10y ago
      No, from Wikipedia: >"The Oxford English Dictionary has defined "rule of law" this way:[2] The authority and influence of law in society, esp. when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behaviour; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes."

rebootthesystem 10y ago

> Rules have been violated, and in a society with a rule of law there has to be consequences. I find this interesting because people will apply this type of thinking to one area and almost exactly the opposite to others. In other words, yeah, there are laws/rules but it is OK to violate them or have no consequences. One obvious example of this is the hotly debated illegal immigration issue in the US. US law clearly establishes what is required in order to emigrate to this country legally. And it further establishes that this legal status is the only way to live and work here permanently. If we live by this idea that "in a society with a rule of law there has to be consequences" the US ought to deport millions of people (or otherwise impose severe-enough penalties). BTW, I am not picking on you, you are not the only person to utter these words. I am referring to the general use of this position rather than your use of it. And, BTW #2, I don't for a moment believe we ought to deport everyone. Many questions here: What is "the rule of law"? When can or should laws be ignored? Who decides? If a law was a law (not being ignored) at the time the transgression took place and we desire to live where "in a society with a rule of law there has to be consequences" should these consequences be applied regardless of how we might feel today? If rules or laws can be selectively applied or ignored at any time in the future, could one make the argument that they are effectively not rules or laws and one, as an individual, is free to ignore them? If they are not serious enough that they can be ignored, why should anyone take them seriously? Do laws mean anything if they are not enforced consistently and uniformly across the population? For example: Why do I have to pay taxes if people are allowed to remain in the country illegally? Both are laws. One is applied uniformly. The other isn't. I am not passing judgement on immigrants here, these are easy examples to reach for. Complex subject, isn't it?

ThrustVectoring 10y ago
Deporting millions of people means less rule of law, not more. There's very significant trade-offs - deportation on that scale can and will intimidate folks into not accessing the legal system, which creates a class of ready-made vulnerable victims and un-reported crimes.
- qeternity 10y ago