4 ms·

The silent erroneous elision you make is that you take as an axiom that at least in Uber's case, at least "broadly speaking" perhaps, "breaking the law benefits

The silent erroneous elision you make is that you take as an axiom that at least in Uber's case, at least "broadly speaking" perhaps, "breaking the law benefits everyone." The silent proposition is that there is some body of law and regulation which benefits no one, or which benefits some in an unjust way (e.g. protecting markets from new entrants). That is certainly true but it's the crux of the entire debate, and reasonable position IMO is that if there are laws and regulations overdue for overhaul or discard, that is a debate we have first using established mechanisms. There can not realistically be any gray area here. The law and regulation cannot in a civil society be "opt in" and adherence be left in effect a matter of discretion on the part of those e.g. seeking to "disrupt" the status quo. There are always costs and benefits and extant law and regulation represents the state of play in our society as to which arguments (rightly or wrongly) have prevailed. There are mechanisms however painfully slow (from the perspective of would-be disruptors) for moving the lines. But maintaining collective complete commitment to consensus respect of those lines whatever they are despite personal preference or benefit is the very foundation of the rule of law. As an aside it's worth commenting that the overwhelming evidence is that transgression is inevitably to the disproportionate benefit of a few, with the costs disproportionately "externalized" on to the commons or the powerless. Uber's behavior has been one demonstration of that after another.

kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
> if there are laws and regulations overdue for overhaul or discard, that is a debate we have first using established mechanisms. While this is all hunky-dory in the abstract, it's usually more complicated in reality. Established mechanisms are not always equally accessible to everyone (in practice, not in theory), nor are they equally effective for everyone. There's a reason protestors take to the streets* instead of calmly writing to their Congressmen about their problems. We can debate ad-nauseum about whether or not Uber crossed the line, but let's not pretend that changing (or even starting a discussion about changing) the status quo is straightforward. * Yes, I know that protesting in the streets is also an established mechanism, but I hope you get my point
thaumasiotes 9y ago
> But maintaining collective complete commitment to consensus respect of those lines whatever they are despite personal preference or benefit is the very foundation of the rule of law. I hope not, or "the rule of law" has never existed and never will. Did you miss my point about the drug trafficker driving 79 in a 75? How far do you think we've gotten towards the goal of "complete commitment to consensus respect of" the traffic laws? Traffic laws are the poster child of the concept "trying to legislate what no one believes in just makes the law lose face before the people". They've turned the police from something people view positively into something people fear. You can be pulled over for driving at the speed limit, because that behavior is unnatural enough that it's suspicious. (And that's true! It is.) You can be pulled over for driving 4 mph over the speed limit. What happened to the rule of law?
- aaroninsf 9y ago
  This is an analogy utterly devoid of any correlative lesson. Consensus adherence to norms of conduct codified are the definition of society and civilization. Objectivist fantasies to the contrary are only that; they invariably lose their charm the instant someone has the ground of largely unrecognized inherited protections and rights jerked out from under them. That law is selective, imperfect, and constantly trailing the realities of the day are problems worth solving. It is astonishing to me sometimes, listening to the cant of "disruption", how eerily similar the total dependence on parasitic herd immunity antivaxxers enjoy is, to the total dependence of the rule of law and benefits of regulation libertarians and other would-be disruptors enjoy. As the article says: Uber is a cautionary tale in almost every domain, from their relation to their workforce, their "contractors," the cities they work in... Everyone sure loves a subsidized ride, right up until the party's over. I enjoyed subsidized lots-of-things the last couple bubbles too. The party ended then as well.
GauntletWizard 9y ago
Yes. I'm very glad Rosa Parks stood up as she was told, and then stood outside the courthouse talking to passerbys while waving a sign.
- aaroninsf 9y ago
  It's true she created a lot of vapor shareholder value while burning down a runway of proportions not seen since the Pharaohs' day, and demonstrated just how abusive one could be to employees in her own. I had forgotten that thx.
- ams6110 9y ago
  Equating the legitimate regulation of employment, insurance, and public transport operation with the pre-civil-rights laws of forced segregation is an overreach.

kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago

> if there are laws and regulations overdue for overhaul or discard, that is a debate we have first using established mechanisms. While this is all hunky-dory in the abstract, it's usually more complicated in reality. Established mechanisms are not always equally accessible to everyone (in practice, not in theory), nor are they equally effective for everyone. There's a reason protestors take to the streets* instead of calmly writing to their Congressmen about their problems. We can debate ad-nauseum about whether or not Uber crossed the line, but let's not pretend that changing (or even starting a discussion about changing) the status quo is straightforward. * Yes, I know that protesting in the streets is also an established mechanism, but I hope you get my point

thaumasiotes 9y ago

> But maintaining collective complete commitment to consensus respect of those lines whatever they are despite personal preference or benefit is the very foundation of the rule of law. I hope not, or "the rule of law" has never existed and never will. Did you miss my point about the drug trafficker driving 79 in a 75? How far do you think we've gotten towards the goal of "complete commitment to consensus respect of" the traffic laws? Traffic laws are the poster child of the concept "trying to legislate what no one believes in just makes the law lose face before the people". They've turned the police from something people view positively into something people fear. You can be pulled over for driving at the speed limit, because that behavior is unnatural enough that it's suspicious. (And that's true! It is.) You can be pulled over for driving 4 mph over the speed limit. What happened to the rule of law?

aaroninsf 9y ago
This is an analogy utterly devoid of any correlative lesson. Consensus adherence to norms of conduct codified are the definition of society and civilization. Objectivist fantasies to the contrary are only that; they invariably lose their charm the instant someone has the ground of largely unrecognized inherited protections and rights jerked out from under them. That law is selective, imperfect, and constantly trailing the realities of the day are problems worth solving. It is astonishing to me sometimes, listening to the cant of "disruption", how eerily similar the total dependence on parasitic herd immunity antivaxxers enjoy is, to the total dependence of the rule of law and benefits of regulation libertarians and other would-be disruptors enjoy. As the article says: Uber is a cautionary tale in almost every domain, from their relation to their workforce, their "contractors," the cities they work in... Everyone sure loves a subsidized ride, right up until the party's over. I enjoyed subsidized lots-of-things the last couple bubbles too. The party ended then as well.

GauntletWizard 9y ago

Yes. I'm very glad Rosa Parks stood up as she was told, and then stood outside the courthouse talking to passerbys while waving a sign.

aaroninsf 9y ago
It's true she created a lot of vapor shareholder value while burning down a runway of proportions not seen since the Pharaohs' day, and demonstrated just how abusive one could be to employees in her own. I had forgotten that thx.
ams6110 9y ago
Equating the legitimate regulation of employment, insurance, and public transport operation with the pre-civil-rights laws of forced segregation is an overreach.