4 ms·
>These ATMs are no different than the shenanigans that Uber got up to: deliberately skirting or outright violating not just the intent but letter of the law in
by muttled 5y ago
>These ATMs are no different than the shenanigans that Uber got up to: deliberately skirting or outright violating not just the intent but letter of the law in order to "disrupt".
To play devil's advocate: they might not exist as a company today had they complied with the law. There's a critical mass problem with trying to do something new that toes the legality line and had they not had the user-base they might not have been able to gain the funding that then allowed them to lobby to change the laws. They lucked out, though, and were popular enough that nobody was able to successfully shut them down for operating what essentially came down to an unlicensed (and maybe uninsured at the time?) cab company.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago> they might not exist as a company today had they complied with the law. If we accept that it's okay to get rich by breaking the law, where is the line that makes it not okay to deal drugs or sell illegal financial products in the hopes they might be legalised later?
- onedognight 5y ago> where is the line that makes it not okay to deal drugs or sell illegal financial products in the hopes they might be legalised later? Nowhere. It’s a gamble. Vietnam War draft dodgers didn’t know they would be pardoned, but did it anyway. Normal people hated taxi companies and their dirty cars and “credit card reader doesn’t work” bullshit. Uber made the right call that they would get support. If you like currently illegal drugs, you might think that crypto is the path forward, but money launderers are scamming the system and these laws to fight them are well supported and push against the crypto tide. It’s a gamble.
- Dracophoenix 5y agoHow do you think marijuana got legalized, Prohibition got repealed, or Lawrence vs Texas got government out of the bedroom?
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoJust looking up Lawrence vs Texas > sanctions of criminal punishment for those who commit sodomy are unconstitutional I don't think anyone was getting rich of sodomy? The argument is spesifically about profiting from criminality, not about disobedience/protest and lawbraking in general.
- Dracophoenix 5y agoI got carried away with that last bit, my point stands. Profits accrued from breaking - or merely circumventing - the law can be a legal changing force.