8 ms·

Why? All were against the law at one time, and emigration to avoid the impact of the law was possible. (C.f. the Madagascar plan.) Thus, the preconditions of m

Why? All were against the law at one time, and emigration to avoid the impact of the law was possible. (C.f. the Madagascar plan.) Thus, the preconditions of markoffs argument apply. If the conclusion is outrageous, it's a flaw in his argument.

foobarchu 10y ago
It's an outrageous comparison because your comparing Uber to civil disobedience. There is actually difference. Companies are incapable of civil disobedience. As soon as somebody is making money off of it, it's just breaking the law, regardless of whether or not you like said law. If Uber wants to change the world, they can start lobbying, or start a grassroots movement or something. Just saying "screw you" to the existing regulations isn't ok.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  So if a restaurant served people of both races but gave them all a bill, you'd be similarly opposed? Or if blacks broke the law to draw attention to discrimination in employment or occupational licensing? After all, someone (a corporation in the restaurant case) is making money off it so it's just breaking the law. Or if Catholics in Northern Ireland were protesting to stop discrimination against them in employment, same thing? (Springs to mind since I just visited Derry a few days ago.) Due to the involvement of money it's just breaking the law? Similarly, Isis Brantley fought for 20 years for the right to braid hair. I suppose you oppose her actions too? http://www.cosmopolitan.com/style-beauty/news/a41742/isis-brantley-hair-braiding-texas/ http://www.cosmopolitan.com/style-beauty/news/a41742/isis-br... That's a new argument which I don't agree with, but I suppose the implications aren't quite as bad as those of Markoff's argument. You aren't condemning all civil rights activists, just the ones who fight for an equal right to make money. Or perhaps you are just making a post-hoc rationalization for a less justifiable position.

foobarchu 10y ago

It's an outrageous comparison because your comparing Uber to civil disobedience. There is actually difference. Companies are incapable of civil disobedience. As soon as somebody is making money off of it, it's just breaking the law, regardless of whether or not you like said law. If Uber wants to change the world, they can start lobbying, or start a grassroots movement or something. Just saying "screw you" to the existing regulations isn't ok.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
So if a restaurant served people of both races but gave them all a bill, you'd be similarly opposed? Or if blacks broke the law to draw attention to discrimination in employment or occupational licensing? After all, someone (a corporation in the restaurant case) is making money off it so it's just breaking the law. Or if Catholics in Northern Ireland were protesting to stop discrimination against them in employment, same thing? (Springs to mind since I just visited Derry a few days ago.) Due to the involvement of money it's just breaking the law? Similarly, Isis Brantley fought for 20 years for the right to braid hair. I suppose you oppose her actions too? http://www.cosmopolitan.com/style-beauty/news/a41742/isis-brantley-hair-braiding-texas/ http://www.cosmopolitan.com/style-beauty/news/a41742/isis-br... That's a new argument which I don't agree with, but I suppose the implications aren't quite as bad as those of Markoff's argument. You aren't condemning all civil rights activists, just the ones who fight for an equal right to make money. Or perhaps you are just making a post-hoc rationalization for a less justifiable position.