7 ms·

> The country has not specifically regulated transport services like Uber, but has said it will suspend for 25 years the licenses of drivers caught working for

> The country has not specifically regulated transport services like Uber, but has said it will suspend for 25 years the licenses of drivers caught working for the platform. I really wish things defaulted to "legal if not specifically prohibited", not "illegal unless specifically allowed" like this implies. (probably just a case of overly broad taxi legislation, though)

inetknght 7y ago
Why?
- pbreit 7y ago
  Because freedom. Try it, it's wonderful.
  - JaimeThompson 7y ago
    That worked out really well in regards to the environment before environmental regulations didn't it?
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  Because doing something new shouldn't be illegal by default.
  - quirkot 7y ago
    stares at camera in zombie-apocalypse virus
- cftorres 7y ago
  People usually is ambitious and stupid, a bad combination for sustainability.
pbreit 7y ago
That used to be how the USA worked.
- mdorazio 7y ago
  I feel like this is still how it works. If something is unregulated, you can do what you want. It's just that we've added so many regulations for everything that pretty much nothing is allowed anymore without going through some kind of approval process.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    It turns out if you don't make a rule for something, someone is going to come along and start dumping toxic waste into a playground.
    - Zak 7y ago
      If used effectively, basic tort law could cover this sort of thing. Where you really need detailed regulations is if you want to permit someone to pollute in a limited way without getting sued.
      - wahern 7y ago
        > If used effectively Unless we lived in an omniscient surveillance state that automatically notified property owners, basic tort law really couldn't address this effectively because the benefits of dumping easily exceed the risk adjusted costs simply because the costs of detecting and suing for illegal dumping on a property owner by property owner basis are far too great.[1] Indeed, the more toxic the waste the more the situation favors dumpers. [1] To be clear, that's not a comment on pricey lawyers and slow courts, but regards fundamental structural limitations to such a legal system.
    - wahern 7y ago
      Funny because it's true. But to be fair doing such a thing is invariably already illegal under basic rules of property and tort, it's just that the penalties aren't very much. Though even with steep statutory penalties and even criminal penalties it still happens--people still dump toxic waste into the deep woods everywhere. But I would presume that the steeper penalties are somewhat effective at the margins.
maximente 7y ago
the sentence above the one you quoted states that Uber is illegal in Colombia. Uber isn't a registered company in Colombia, which means it's operating illegally.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  That can't be the complete story. If Uber isn't a registered company in Colombia, to whom is Colombia sending orders and issuing fines?
- nmstoker 7y ago
  It's probably much more nuanced than that. Let's take the example of someone in country X using email that's run from the US - this doesn't per se mean that the email company is illegally operating in country X. It could be the users - but I don't think we'll settle it over a forum back and forth. What does seem clear to me though is that Colombia is being disproportionate and possibly somewhat arbitrary & capricious in their response. What sort of country tries to ban people for 25 years! This is the bad parenting brand of legislation ("oh, you ignored my exaggerated threat. Damn"). And I'm not saying this out of support for Uber (can't stand them, which is what makes these kinds of stand offs a good spectacle)
  - maximente 7y ago
    you are introducing (perhaps deliberately straw manning, perhaps not) an example that has an extremely low overhead (low bandwidth over a network) instead of focusing on the presented example, which is: - Uber adds traffic to already choked up/bad infrastructure - Uber does not pay their employees benefits etc. because of their "partnership" so this leads to poorer health outcomes which cost the state $ later on - Uber "voluntarily" pays VAT etc. (only after taxis pushed for this) but almost certainly not commensurate with their income so yes, the company is dumping their enormous externalities without much regard for the country at hand, and it's not useful to insert a tech-focused example into the situation.
atonse 7y ago
God I hope never. And I say this as a business owner. Businesses should be required to register as legal entities and carry the right insurances, and be held accountable through the legal system.
megaremote 7y ago
> "legal if not specifically prohibited" Yeah, I look forward to new forms of pollution just being dumped everywhere, new weapons that are automatically allowed.

inetknght 7y ago

Why?

pbreit 7y ago
Because freedom. Try it, it's wonderful.
- JaimeThompson 7y ago
  That worked out really well in regards to the environment before environmental regulations didn't it?
SkyBelow 7y ago
Because doing something new shouldn't be illegal by default.
- quirkot 7y ago
  stares at camera in zombie-apocalypse virus
cftorres 7y ago
People usually is ambitious and stupid, a bad combination for sustainability.

pbreit 7y ago

That used to be how the USA worked.

mdorazio 7y ago
I feel like this is still how it works. If something is unregulated, you can do what you want. It's just that we've added so many regulations for everything that pretty much nothing is allowed anymore without going through some kind of approval process.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  It turns out if you don't make a rule for something, someone is going to come along and start dumping toxic waste into a playground.
  - Zak 7y ago
    If used effectively, basic tort law could cover this sort of thing. Where you really need detailed regulations is if you want to permit someone to pollute in a limited way without getting sued.
    - wahern 7y ago
      > If used effectively Unless we lived in an omniscient surveillance state that automatically notified property owners, basic tort law really couldn't address this effectively because the benefits of dumping easily exceed the risk adjusted costs simply because the costs of detecting and suing for illegal dumping on a property owner by property owner basis are far too great.[1] Indeed, the more toxic the waste the more the situation favors dumpers. [1] To be clear, that's not a comment on pricey lawyers and slow courts, but regards fundamental structural limitations to such a legal system.
  - wahern 7y ago
    Funny because it's true. But to be fair doing such a thing is invariably already illegal under basic rules of property and tort, it's just that the penalties aren't very much. Though even with steep statutory penalties and even criminal penalties it still happens--people still dump toxic waste into the deep woods everywhere. But I would presume that the steeper penalties are somewhat effective at the margins.

maximente 7y ago

the sentence above the one you quoted states that Uber is illegal in Colombia. Uber isn't a registered company in Colombia, which means it's operating illegally.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
That can't be the complete story. If Uber isn't a registered company in Colombia, to whom is Colombia sending orders and issuing fines?
nmstoker 7y ago
It's probably much more nuanced than that. Let's take the example of someone in country X using email that's run from the US - this doesn't per se mean that the email company is illegally operating in country X. It could be the users - but I don't think we'll settle it over a forum back and forth. What does seem clear to me though is that Colombia is being disproportionate and possibly somewhat arbitrary & capricious in their response. What sort of country tries to ban people for 25 years! This is the bad parenting brand of legislation ("oh, you ignored my exaggerated threat. Damn"). And I'm not saying this out of support for Uber (can't stand them, which is what makes these kinds of stand offs a good spectacle)
- maximente 7y ago
  you are introducing (perhaps deliberately straw manning, perhaps not) an example that has an extremely low overhead (low bandwidth over a network) instead of focusing on the presented example, which is: - Uber adds traffic to already choked up/bad infrastructure - Uber does not pay their employees benefits etc. because of their "partnership" so this leads to poorer health outcomes which cost the state $ later on - Uber "voluntarily" pays VAT etc. (only after taxis pushed for this) but almost certainly not commensurate with their income so yes, the company is dumping their enormous externalities without much regard for the country at hand, and it's not useful to insert a tech-focused example into the situation.

atonse 7y ago

God I hope never. And I say this as a business owner. Businesses should be required to register as legal entities and carry the right insurances, and be held accountable through the legal system.

megaremote 7y ago

> "legal if not specifically prohibited" Yeah, I look forward to new forms of pollution just being dumped everywhere, new weapons that are automatically allowed.