2 ms·
> Kalanick or you don't get to decide which laws are stupid and should therefore be broken. Every person for themselves decides which law they should obey and
by Anderkent 10y ago
> Kalanick or you don't get to decide which laws are stupid and should therefore be broken.
Every person for themselves decides which law they should obey and which ones they should break.
> There's an established process for that.
And the process pretty much always starts with people deciding to disobey the law, and the law being adjusted later on to match public expectations.
> Also, 'jurisdiction' means something different than you think,
Yes, I meant to type regulation, ~corrected~ (ETA: not corrected because I can't edit anymore) with thanks
- ivraatiems 10y ago> Every person for themselves decides which law they should obey and which ones they should break. Corporations are not people. And even if we're only talking about Kalanick, while one may choose what laws to break or not, that doesn't exclude one from prosecution for laws one has broken. You don't get to pick and choose like that. Your basic proposition here is that rules you don't like shouldn't have to apply to you. Society cannot function that way.
- Anderkent 10y ago> Your basic proposition here is that rules you don't like shouldn't have to apply to you. Society cannot function that way. No, I never said that? Obviously when you break a law you should be prepared to face the consequences for breaking that law, as stated in the law. That's the baseline of paying fines. (And then possibly contesting the fines in court or building a public case for changing the law based on being fined for something really silly). What is not necessarily good is the additional public punishment for breaking a law; whether in form of bad PR, people boycotting them, protests, etc. That outrage should not be encouraged based on legality of actions, but only based on their morality.