3 ms·

Rules and regulations require trade-offs. The YC types that run these companies notice the inefficiencies resulting from these trade-offs, recognize the opportu

Rules and regulations require trade-offs. The YC types that run these companies notice the inefficiencies resulting from these trade-offs, recognize the opportunity to profit from them and arrogantly assume they have the right to ignore any rule they can't immediately see the harm in breaking; either because they aren't / wouldn't be affected by the negative externalities the rule is mitigating, so they don't understand why it exists, or, more often than not, because they don't really give a fuck about anything other than making money and being big-time shot-callers.

icebraining 8y ago
You're still assuming that all rules are mitigating negative externalities. I find your faith in government amazing, and I'm no libertarian.
- blackbagboys 8y ago
  Can you offer any recent examples of start-ups routinely breaking the law where nearly everyone is in agreement that their law-breaking has no negative social effect? Again, all rules involve trade-offs. It may be that those trade-offs or preferentially unfairly benefit some special interest group or otherwise aren't worth the cost to society, but it's not up to profit-seeking hucksters to unilaterally make that determination.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    The first example that occurs to me is startups selling medical marijuana in states which have already legalized it (yet they're still breaking federal law).
    - blackbagboys 8y ago
      They're in conflict with federal law, but they're following a legal and regulatory framework that was established by their local governments, so there's a broad consensus where they are operating that it's OK to break those rules. That's not unilaterally deciding to ignore the law. A better example of a start-up in the marijuana space that did do that might be, say, the Zeta Cartel. (obviously, I'm not saying that no one should ever break an unjust law, but I don't believe for a second that we should allow profit-motivated companies to be good judges of what are just and unjust laws)
      - icebraining 8y ago
        So you ask me to provide a counter-example to your position, by mentioning a startup which broke the law "where nearly everyone is in agreement that their law-breaking has no negative social effect", yet when I provide one, it doesn't count because "there's a broad consensus where they are operating that it's OK to break those rules"? This isn't even a No True Scotsman, it's literally contradictory.
        blackbagboys 8y ago
        No, there are two separate points being argued here. You first implied that there are plenty of rules that are completely pointless - mitigating no negative externalities. I challenged you to provide an example of a start-up whose business was based on breaking those kinds of rules - since usually the reason you can make money off rule-breaking in the first place is because you're externalizing the costs onto the rest of society. I then said that rule-making is a trade-off, and that you don't get to unilaterally decide those trade-offs are illegitimate because you want to make money. In the case of medical marijuana, yes, obviously, there are negative social consequences to selling marijuana and there are people who would vigorously argue in favor of federal drug laws. But these clinics are not unilaterally operating in defiance of federal drug laws; they have the backing of the government of their states. Of course, there are also plenty of profiteers who just break the law and then reinvest the profits in the task of forcing communities to accept their social irresponsibility and lawlessness as a fait accompli (AirBNB, Uber). If you really want to think seriously about these issues, you need to move beyond just name-dropping 'logical fallacies' to try and win arguments.
        icebraining 8y ago
        I disagree with your portrayal of the conversation. You made an overbroad claim (they're either oblivious or don't care) and I challenged its universal applicability. Your nuanced third position only came out after that. I do want to think seriously about these issues, and I think that's exactly what my challenge accomplished. As a further question: why is a startup imposing externalities on its surrounding communities (like those two) necessarily in the wrong, whereas a state can do the same (legalizing marijuana has effects on neighboring states) without moral qualms? Is the problem really the law breaking, or that you just dislike the motives for doing so?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

icebraining 8y ago

You're still assuming that all rules are mitigating negative externalities. I find your faith in government amazing, and I'm no libertarian.

blackbagboys 8y ago
Can you offer any recent examples of start-ups routinely breaking the law where nearly everyone is in agreement that their law-breaking has no negative social effect? Again, all rules involve trade-offs. It may be that those trade-offs or preferentially unfairly benefit some special interest group or otherwise aren't worth the cost to society, but it's not up to profit-seeking hucksters to unilaterally make that determination.
- icebraining 8y ago
  The first example that occurs to me is startups selling medical marijuana in states which have already legalized it (yet they're still breaking federal law).
  - blackbagboys 8y ago
    They're in conflict with federal law, but they're following a legal and regulatory framework that was established by their local governments, so there's a broad consensus where they are operating that it's OK to break those rules. That's not unilaterally deciding to ignore the law. A better example of a start-up in the marijuana space that did do that might be, say, the Zeta Cartel. (obviously, I'm not saying that no one should ever break an unjust law, but I don't believe for a second that we should allow profit-motivated companies to be good judges of what are just and unjust laws)
    - icebraining 8y ago
      So you ask me to provide a counter-example to your position, by mentioning a startup which broke the law "where nearly everyone is in agreement that their law-breaking has no negative social effect", yet when I provide one, it doesn't count because "there's a broad consensus where they are operating that it's OK to break those rules"? This isn't even a No True Scotsman, it's literally contradictory.
      - blackbagboys 8y ago
        No, there are two separate points being argued here. You first implied that there are plenty of rules that are completely pointless - mitigating no negative externalities. I challenged you to provide an example of a start-up whose business was based on breaking those kinds of rules - since usually the reason you can make money off rule-breaking in the first place is because you're externalizing the costs onto the rest of society. I then said that rule-making is a trade-off, and that you don't get to unilaterally decide those trade-offs are illegitimate because you want to make money. In the case of medical marijuana, yes, obviously, there are negative social consequences to selling marijuana and there are people who would vigorously argue in favor of federal drug laws. But these clinics are not unilaterally operating in defiance of federal drug laws; they have the backing of the government of their states. Of course, there are also plenty of profiteers who just break the law and then reinvest the profits in the task of forcing communities to accept their social irresponsibility and lawlessness as a fait accompli (AirBNB, Uber). If you really want to think seriously about these issues, you need to move beyond just name-dropping 'logical fallacies' to try and win arguments.
        icebraining 8y ago
        I disagree with your portrayal of the conversation. You made an overbroad claim (they're either oblivious or don't care) and I challenged its universal applicability. Your nuanced third position only came out after that. I do want to think seriously about these issues, and I think that's exactly what my challenge accomplished. As a further question: why is a startup imposing externalities on its surrounding communities (like those two) necessarily in the wrong, whereas a state can do the same (legalizing marijuana has effects on neighboring states) without moral qualms? Is the problem really the law breaking, or that you just dislike the motives for doing so?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]