4 ms·

You missed the point entirely: there is a profound difference between A) Starting a business explicitly profiting from "efficiencies" created by breaking exist

by sheetjs 13y ago

You missed the point entirely: there is a profound difference between A) Starting a business explicitly profiting from "efficiencies" created by breaking existing laws (Uber) B) Starting a business that takes advantages of loopholes in the law and failing to take steps to ensure that customers follow the law (Amazon and Use Taxes) C) Starting a business profiting from certain efficiencies without violating the laws on the books at the time (Tesla)

nickff 13y ago
A) Some places have laws to ban unlicensed taxis, while others do not. C) Some states have laws to ban auto-makers from making direct sales to consumers, while others do not. You have attempted to make a distinction, but not a principled distinction. There is no reason (that I have seen) which explains why unlicensed car dealers are less harmful to the public than unlicensed taxi drivers.
aric 13y ago
No. You missed the point entirely. There is no profound difference. No one is stating that the laws are perfectly paralleled. Nothing of this nature is perfectly paralleled. You're failing to appreciate that law is entirely arbitrary and worthless compared to an individual's opinion of the level of corruption surrounding that law. Your points A, B, C are meaningless to a person's opinion of the underlying validity and righteousness of those points.
- marshray 13y ago
  Reads to me like that person's opinion of the law is that systemic inconsistencies have "profound" implications (on the underlying validity etc.)
  - aric 13y ago
    I don't think it was. Above the person writes... > "PG is off the mark here. Companies like Uber explicitly ignore the existing laws and regulations. In the case of Tesla, the ruling just passed." This indicates to me that the "profound" differences to him/her regarding "validity" is whether a law previously exists. (...Seemingly completely oblivious to the notion that much of what is made into law is insidious, vile, and of a precedence worth objecting.) If the point was only about systemic inconsistencies, that wan't clear.
- npizzolato 13y ago
  I (and the GP) believe there's a profound difference in starting a company knowing that you'll be breaking laws (Uber) and running an established company that just had a law passed that negatively impacts your business (Tesla). You're failing to address that besides saying that all law is completely arbitrary.
  - aric 13y ago
    The distinction of precedence has (or should have) no profound difference to a person's opinion of what constitutes validity or corruption, regardless of a status quo. That is my point. There is only "profound difference" to the circular reasoning of law itself. There was no reason for me to address that. Legal frameworks are inherently rigid and without much individual conscience.

by sheetjs 13y ago

nickff 13y ago

A) Some places have laws to ban unlicensed taxis, while others do not. C) Some states have laws to ban auto-makers from making direct sales to consumers, while others do not. You have attempted to make a distinction, but not a principled distinction. There is no reason (that I have seen) which explains why unlicensed car dealers are less harmful to the public than unlicensed taxi drivers.

aric 13y ago

No. You missed the point entirely. There is no profound difference. No one is stating that the laws are perfectly paralleled. Nothing of this nature is perfectly paralleled. You're failing to appreciate that law is entirely arbitrary and worthless compared to an individual's opinion of the level of corruption surrounding that law. Your points A, B, C are meaningless to a person's opinion of the underlying validity and righteousness of those points.

marshray 13y ago
Reads to me like that person's opinion of the law is that systemic inconsistencies have "profound" implications (on the underlying validity etc.)
- aric 13y ago
  I don't think it was. Above the person writes... > "PG is off the mark here. Companies like Uber explicitly ignore the existing laws and regulations. In the case of Tesla, the ruling just passed." This indicates to me that the "profound" differences to him/her regarding "validity" is whether a law previously exists. (...Seemingly completely oblivious to the notion that much of what is made into law is insidious, vile, and of a precedence worth objecting.) If the point was only about systemic inconsistencies, that wan't clear.
npizzolato 13y ago
I (and the GP) believe there's a profound difference in starting a company knowing that you'll be breaking laws (Uber) and running an established company that just had a law passed that negatively impacts your business (Tesla). You're failing to address that besides saying that all law is completely arbitrary.
- aric 13y ago
  The distinction of precedence has (or should have) no profound difference to a person's opinion of what constitutes validity or corruption, regardless of a status quo. That is my point. There is only "profound difference" to the circular reasoning of law itself. There was no reason for me to address that. Legal frameworks are inherently rigid and without much individual conscience.