6 ms·
Devil's advocate, what's the issue here? I'm obviously have my own biases, but why should I care that European regulators got bamboozled by Uber? Uber is clear
by bayareabadboy 4y ago
Devil's advocate, what's the issue here?
I'm obviously have my own biases, but why should I care that European regulators got bamboozled by Uber? Uber is clearly duplicitous, and I only have a hypodermic understanding of this, but were consumers ultimately harmed (other than the obvious wasting of time of the regulators)?
- growse 4y agoIf your business model depends on breaking the law, then society is harmed.
- fluoridation 4y agoI don't think one necessarily follows from the other.
- selfhoster11 4y agoIt does, if the assumption is that laws are passed by a democratic society for the benefit of said society. That's not always the case, but when it comes to something tangential to protecting consumer rights (like this case), evading these laws seems suspicious.
- voidnullpointer 4y ago
- bayareabadboy 4y agoI agree, although I concede that this rational could be (and often is) used to justify terrible things.
- solarkraft 4y agoIt's kind of society's job to fight off that harm. Companies can not expected to be nice.
- growse 4y agoSure, which is why we have regulators, and the police, and other bodies to deal with the fact that some individuals don't respect the law.
- LatteLazy 4y agoThat depends entirely on the law you're breaking and whether it actually helps society.
- growse 4y agoI (nor any other individual) don't get to decide whether or not a given law harms society. We all, collectively, as a society decide that. Even if you decide to break a law that has zero impact on anyone, that fact that others can see you doing that with impunity harms society. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of stupid laws. But going around breaking ones that are inconvenient to your business model is kind of a dick move.
- LatteLazy 4y agoIn an ideal world I would agree. The problem is we don't live in an idea world and societies methods for creating laws are pretty terrible (without getting into the methods of enforcement). So we are all left with a very imperfect set of laws. And we absolutely do decide from moment to moment which ones to obey and which ones to ignore. That's not a moral judgement, it's just life. I can speed or not speed. I have to decide moment by moment whether to do it or not. So that leaves us with a choice: obey unjust and counterproductive laws or disobey them. And remember, obeying a law doesn't make it just. Something being a law doesn't make it just. So really when you choose to obey an unjust law, you are just choosing to act unjustly. It being the law doesn't make it just. So while I might agree in a perfect world, and I don't want to make excuses for people who ignore laws for personal convenience, I don't think it's moral to just issue a defacto "no individual should ever ignore the law" judgement... I actually think our current society is much too obedient. Too few people think about whether a law is moral or not and too many just blindly accept it or obey only got fear of getting into trouble. But now I'm really soapboxing... :)
- dahfizz 4y agoDo Europeans not have a fifth amendment equivalent right? What law compels Uber to give all data at all times to the police without a warrant?
- kmeisthax 4y agoDrivers were harmed too, and we should not overlook that.