4 ms·

The biggest problem here is that they needed permission in the first place. We have completely inverted how society is suppose to work. Government should have

The biggest problem here is that they needed permission in the first place. We have completely inverted how society is suppose to work. Government should have to provide a clear, articulable justification to make something illegal People should not have to petition the government for permission to do something, if everything is defacto illegal with out government approval you no longer live in a free society

arrosenberg 3y ago
> Government should have to provide a clear, articulable justification to make something illegal The roads are owned and paid for by the public, ergo the government can set rules for safety and maintenance. That seems clear and articulate enough to me.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  So then I take you oppose the protesters. because you can not have ti both ways, you can not claim to outsource your thinking to the government for your safety, who have approved this technology while at the same time opposing this technology.
  - seadan83 3y ago
    This is a bad faith argument. Please review the hacker news discussion guide lines.
  - arrosenberg 3y ago
    Not really relevant to my argument, but sure. I never asked to have it both ways - I don’t like the technology, but they are allowed to be operating. Civil disobedience is also an American tradition, so I don’t oppose it, nor would I oppose the police for enforcing the law.
bendergarcia 3y ago
It’s because corporations show time and time again to cut corners and do harmful things. Everything should be de facto illegal and companies should have to prove that it should be made legal through research and data. Things will move much slower but at this point I’d rather that than another Uber airbnb who “disrupts” the market but actually causes many negative externalities.
blurker 3y ago
So do you think anything should be legal on the roads by default? I think there is a clear and obvious justification for why we don't let anyone drive anything on the roads: safety. Letting people test whatever they want on our roads is a risk to all other road users.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >>So do you think anything should be legal on the roads by default? yes >>I think there is a clear and obvious justification for why we don't let anyone drive anything on the roads: safety. Safety, the drum beat of the authoritarians for all of human history. Safety is often used to limit freedom, rarely is safety the actual reason for laws and regulations, even rarer does safety increase as a result of the rules In this case there is no safety issue even being claimed, people are annoyed by them, they believe they take away from other public transit aka they are politically opposed to them, or a wide range of other non-safety issues. If there is a safety issue that actually endangers others we have many mechanisms to check that including legal liability. Further with safety you get in the "if it saves one life" debate as well. In short if safety was the only goal we would have no freedom at all, life is about risk management, not ensuring absolute safety. I have no desire to live in a "safe" society where safety first is the goal To misquote Mike Rowe.. "Safety Third... lots of things come before safety"
ultrarunner 3y ago
I definitely agree with your point, but outdoor public spaces in the US are now primarily roads subject to extensive regulation. Despite what an ad for a new truck may try to sell you, driving is not part of free society.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  How is freedom to travel with out government oppression not part of a free society Keep in mind public roads, in the US, pre-date Automobiles, pre-date even the founding of this nation. and I think the idea that free travel upon public roads was not a core freedom would be a shock to the Founders
BurningFrog 3y ago
This is the old "Rule of Law" vs "Rule of Men" question. In a Rule of Men system, you have to ask some gatekeeper for permission to do things. The gatekeeper will always ask for something in return for saying yes, one way or another.
dang 3y ago
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37273980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37273980.

arrosenberg 3y ago

> Government should have to provide a clear, articulable justification to make something illegal The roads are owned and paid for by the public, ergo the government can set rules for safety and maintenance. That seems clear and articulate enough to me.

phpisthebest 3y ago
So then I take you oppose the protesters. because you can not have ti both ways, you can not claim to outsource your thinking to the government for your safety, who have approved this technology while at the same time opposing this technology.
- seadan83 3y ago
  This is a bad faith argument. Please review the hacker news discussion guide lines.
- arrosenberg 3y ago
  Not really relevant to my argument, but sure. I never asked to have it both ways - I don’t like the technology, but they are allowed to be operating. Civil disobedience is also an American tradition, so I don’t oppose it, nor would I oppose the police for enforcing the law.

bendergarcia 3y ago

It’s because corporations show time and time again to cut corners and do harmful things. Everything should be de facto illegal and companies should have to prove that it should be made legal through research and data. Things will move much slower but at this point I’d rather that than another Uber airbnb who “disrupts” the market but actually causes many negative externalities.

blurker 3y ago

So do you think anything should be legal on the roads by default? I think there is a clear and obvious justification for why we don't let anyone drive anything on the roads: safety. Letting people test whatever they want on our roads is a risk to all other road users.

phpisthebest 3y ago
>>So do you think anything should be legal on the roads by default? yes >>I think there is a clear and obvious justification for why we don't let anyone drive anything on the roads: safety. Safety, the drum beat of the authoritarians for all of human history. Safety is often used to limit freedom, rarely is safety the actual reason for laws and regulations, even rarer does safety increase as a result of the rules In this case there is no safety issue even being claimed, people are annoyed by them, they believe they take away from other public transit aka they are politically opposed to them, or a wide range of other non-safety issues. If there is a safety issue that actually endangers others we have many mechanisms to check that including legal liability. Further with safety you get in the "if it saves one life" debate as well. In short if safety was the only goal we would have no freedom at all, life is about risk management, not ensuring absolute safety. I have no desire to live in a "safe" society where safety first is the goal To misquote Mike Rowe.. "Safety Third... lots of things come before safety"

ultrarunner 3y ago

I definitely agree with your point, but outdoor public spaces in the US are now primarily roads subject to extensive regulation. Despite what an ad for a new truck may try to sell you, driving is not part of free society.

phpisthebest 3y ago
How is freedom to travel with out government oppression not part of a free society Keep in mind public roads, in the US, pre-date Automobiles, pre-date even the founding of this nation. and I think the idea that free travel upon public roads was not a core freedom would be a shock to the Founders

BurningFrog 3y ago

This is the old "Rule of Law" vs "Rule of Men" question. In a Rule of Men system, you have to ask some gatekeeper for permission to do things. The gatekeeper will always ask for something in return for saying yes, one way or another.

dang 3y ago

"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37273980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37273980.