4 ms·

> I am okay with them skirting regulatory procedures. I consider this an extension of "move fast and break things". If there were any statement that is a good

> I am okay with them skirting regulatory procedures. I consider this an extension of "move fast and break things". If there were any statement that is a good summation of tech culture hubris, it's "move fast and break things." You can not and, more appropriately, should not apply that to law as a basis for your business. If you are doing something illegal in your resident locale, then you are doing something illegal and reprehensible. Full stop. If you feel that law is unjust, then fight it in a court of law. However, intentionally breaking that law with no intention of fighting it on its merits of being just but rather on the merits of preferred business operation is a pretty clear violation of ethics. Regardless, the court's decision is ultimately what governs the upholding of a law. Being in violation of that is still illegal.

icebraining 9y ago
"Full stop" is not an argument. However, intentionally breaking that law with no intention of fighting it on its merits of being just but rather on the merits of preferred business operation is a pretty clear violation of ethics. The two are not incompatible. Regardless, the court's decision is ultimately what governs the upholding of a law. Being in violation of that is still illegal. "Violating the law is illegal", says Captain Obvious.
ClassyJacket 9y ago
>If you feel that law is unjust, then fight it in a court of law. This is bad advice for companies like Uber. The laws were changed far, far quicker with them simply disregarding them than they would have been with them politely asking for them to be changed with the entire global taxi industry against them. It's also a fallacy that breaking the law is always morally reprehensible. Some laws are just stupid.
- foldr 9y ago
  Is not business advice, it's an ethical imperative.
  - ClassyJacket 9y ago
    That doesn't logically follow. The law is not an infallible and perfect representation of ethics. In some cases, to do the right thing ethically, breaking the law is even necessary.
    - foldr 9y ago
      In rare cases, yes. But you obviously can't justify breaking the law on the grounds that you'll make more money that way. Uber is not engaging in genuine acts of civil disobedience. It's trying to make a fast buck regardless of the effect on anyone else. Intent matters.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > It's also a fallacy that breaking the law is always morally reprehensible. Some laws are just stupid. Does Uber pick the laws to break by their apparent stupidity? Or just by them being inconvenient for their money-making scheme? > The laws were changed far, far quicker with them simply disregarding them than they would have been with them politely asking for them to be changed with the entire global taxi industry against them. Well, sure, just how like I could resolve a conflict with my associate by killing him much faster than it would take me to go through courts. But the very reason for laws to exist is to safeguard the needs of the whole. Just because a law is invonvenient to an individual or an organization, doesn't mean the law is stupid or obsolete.
  - cgag 9y ago
    They're stupid because they're inconvenient to almost everyone.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Past my edit window, so adding as a separate reply: > with them politely asking for them to be changed with the entire global taxi industry against them. The funny thing is, there is no global taxi industry. There never was. It's only a collection of mostly unrelated city-wide operations. The only truly global player on the scene is Uber - and they use the fact they're the only global presence to their advantage, by raising absurd amounts of money from VCs and using it to conquer local markets, one by one.
Trundle 9y ago
You seem to have a bad case of conflicting legality with morality. >Regardless, the court's decision is ultimately what governs the upholding of a law. Being in violation of that is still illegal. This is just a tautology.
- Stratoscope 9y ago
  Just a suggestion, beginning a comment with "You seem to have a bad case of..." may not be conducive to a friendly discussion. In any case, I think you meant "conflating", not "conflicting".
- foldr 9y ago
  >You seem to have a bad case of conflicting legality with morality. Anyone who intentionally breaks the law has to meet a heavy burden of justification. The circumstances under which it's morally ok to do so are rare, and usually involve emergencies or deliberate protest (in which case the perpetrator has to be prepared to accept the consequences). You cannot just go around breaking whatever law happens to be impacting your bank balance at the present moment and then justify that behaviour merely by intoning the phrase "legality is not morality".
empath75 9y ago
The taxi business in most cities was a horrible clusterfuck and Uber did a lot to improve the situation and improve cities. I don't think there was any other way to break the system without a competitor coming in and breaking the law and showing people how much better taxis could be. If that were the only law they broke, I'd be fine with it.

icebraining 9y ago

"Full stop" is not an argument. However, intentionally breaking that law with no intention of fighting it on its merits of being just but rather on the merits of preferred business operation is a pretty clear violation of ethics. The two are not incompatible. Regardless, the court's decision is ultimately what governs the upholding of a law. Being in violation of that is still illegal. "Violating the law is illegal", says Captain Obvious.

ClassyJacket 9y ago

>If you feel that law is unjust, then fight it in a court of law. This is bad advice for companies like Uber. The laws were changed far, far quicker with them simply disregarding them than they would have been with them politely asking for them to be changed with the entire global taxi industry against them. It's also a fallacy that breaking the law is always morally reprehensible. Some laws are just stupid.

foldr 9y ago
Is not business advice, it's an ethical imperative.
- ClassyJacket 9y ago
  That doesn't logically follow. The law is not an infallible and perfect representation of ethics. In some cases, to do the right thing ethically, breaking the law is even necessary.
  - foldr 9y ago
    In rare cases, yes. But you obviously can't justify breaking the law on the grounds that you'll make more money that way. Uber is not engaging in genuine acts of civil disobedience. It's trying to make a fast buck regardless of the effect on anyone else. Intent matters.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
> It's also a fallacy that breaking the law is always morally reprehensible. Some laws are just stupid. Does Uber pick the laws to break by their apparent stupidity? Or just by them being inconvenient for their money-making scheme? > The laws were changed far, far quicker with them simply disregarding them than they would have been with them politely asking for them to be changed with the entire global taxi industry against them. Well, sure, just how like I could resolve a conflict with my associate by killing him much faster than it would take me to go through courts. But the very reason for laws to exist is to safeguard the needs of the whole. Just because a law is invonvenient to an individual or an organization, doesn't mean the law is stupid or obsolete.
- cgag 9y ago
  They're stupid because they're inconvenient to almost everyone.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
Past my edit window, so adding as a separate reply: > with them politely asking for them to be changed with the entire global taxi industry against them. The funny thing is, there is no global taxi industry. There never was. It's only a collection of mostly unrelated city-wide operations. The only truly global player on the scene is Uber - and they use the fact they're the only global presence to their advantage, by raising absurd amounts of money from VCs and using it to conquer local markets, one by one.

Trundle 9y ago

You seem to have a bad case of conflicting legality with morality. >Regardless, the court's decision is ultimately what governs the upholding of a law. Being in violation of that is still illegal. This is just a tautology.

Stratoscope 9y ago
Just a suggestion, beginning a comment with "You seem to have a bad case of..." may not be conducive to a friendly discussion. In any case, I think you meant "conflating", not "conflicting".
foldr 9y ago
>You seem to have a bad case of conflicting legality with morality. Anyone who intentionally breaks the law has to meet a heavy burden of justification. The circumstances under which it's morally ok to do so are rare, and usually involve emergencies or deliberate protest (in which case the perpetrator has to be prepared to accept the consequences). You cannot just go around breaking whatever law happens to be impacting your bank balance at the present moment and then justify that behaviour merely by intoning the phrase "legality is not morality".

empath75 9y ago

The taxi business in most cities was a horrible clusterfuck and Uber did a lot to improve the situation and improve cities. I don't think there was any other way to break the system without a competitor coming in and breaking the law and showing people how much better taxis could be. If that were the only law they broke, I'd be fine with it.