4 ms·

Of course the perfect is the enemy of the good, in this as in all things. That said, if you don't feel that you can start a business and run it both legally and

by vec 9y ago

Of course the perfect is the enemy of the good, in this as in all things. That said, if you don't feel that you can start a business and run it both legally and ethically, maybe consider not starting a business. Nobody forced Travis Kalanick to found a company that couldn't work in the then-extant regulatory structure. Nobody forced him to work around the problem by just flat out ignoring the law and hoping he could lobby to get it changed before he got called to task for it. Nobody forced him to come up with a long-term profitability plan that required being able to eventually charge monopoly prices. Nobody forced him to try to undercut his competitors by doing an end-run around employee protections. He always had the option to go be an angel investor or something instead. He chose a model which could not be done ethically and upon realizing that decided to pursue it anyway. I'm not certain what that makes him, but it sure doesn't make him a victim.

sillysaurus3 9y ago
On the surface, this is a reasonable critique. But it conflates ethics with the law. It's helpful to remember that we don't have a justice system. We have a legal system. That's a very important distinction, and it's why we see the law co-evolve with society. If you're arguing that under no circumstances is it ethical to found a company that doesn't toe the letter of the law, then you've got a tough case. Are you sure it's ethical that you're not allowed to offer someone a ride in exchange for money? This extends to other companies. Airbnb is a prime example. Aside from a few corner cases (one of the worst being SF), Airbnb has been a positive influence. And it never would've happened if they had been too shy to act. You can argue it's unethical, but meanwhile the world rolls on. It's much more effective to accept it and to dominate the game. But you won't if you refuse to play.

by vec 9y ago

sillysaurus3 9y ago

On the surface, this is a reasonable critique. But it conflates ethics with the law. It's helpful to remember that we don't have a justice system. We have a legal system. That's a very important distinction, and it's why we see the law co-evolve with society. If you're arguing that under no circumstances is it ethical to found a company that doesn't toe the letter of the law, then you've got a tough case. Are you sure it's ethical that you're not allowed to offer someone a ride in exchange for money? This extends to other companies. Airbnb is a prime example. Aside from a few corner cases (one of the worst being SF), Airbnb has been a positive influence. And it never would've happened if they had been too shy to act. You can argue it's unethical, but meanwhile the world rolls on. It's much more effective to accept it and to dominate the game. But you won't if you refuse to play.