6 ms·

I find this totally infuriating. Yes, Uber offers a valuable service that I wish more localities would accommodate. But we are bound even by laws that we think

I find this totally infuriating. Yes, Uber offers a valuable service that I wish more localities would accommodate. But we are bound even by laws that we think are stupid, and Uber shouldn't be allowed to operate in flagrant violation of local laws simply because they have enough money to pay the fines they rack up. And this is to say nothing of the fact that Charleston may well have legitimate policy reasons for wanting to regulate taxi drivers, reasons that Uber is now actively undermining. If I were Charleston, my next order of business would be to enact an ordinance providing for exponentially increasing fines for businesses that materially encourage the violation of local laws.

jmckib 12y ago
I agree with your point that in general one shouldn't be able to use money to skirt the law, but I can hardly be infuriated with Uber for violating laws that only exist to fleece consumers by preventing competition in the taxi industry. To make an analogy, it's clear that civil disobedience should not be practiced against laws forbidding murder or theft, but in the case of jim crow laws or similarly unjust laws I would fully support acts of civil disobedience.
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  I can't say I'm persuaded by the civil-rights-era civil disobedience analogy. While I might support civil disobedience to help rectify a centuries-long history of racial discrimination, I can't say I feel the same way about helping consumers find a cheaper and easier way to get around town (or to help drivers sell time and space in their car without getting a taxi license). And this is, of course, to ignore the real motive: Uber is actually only flouting the law in order to make a profit. Not exactly Selma. Also, does it not bother you that this particular form of civil disobedience is only available with extremely deep pockets?
  - thrill 12y ago
    Bad laws make for bad liberty.
    - krapp 12y ago
      Every company believes the laws which interfere with their capacity for profit are bad laws. That doesn't actually make them so.
    - pdabbadabba 12y ago
      I'm not sure I understand your point. Is it that you should be free to disregard any law you think is bad, because these bad laws infringe on your liberty?
      - icebraining 12y ago
        Free from what? Legal consequences, social recrimination or moral guilt? The answers are not necessarily the same. One could argue the Uber should be punished, but that they should do it anyway.
67726e 12y ago
To be entirely fair, this is a city that setup a sting operation to give bike-taxi drivers $1000 fines for giving impromptu tours of the peninsula. It's the kind of place that requires you to keep the horrible single-pane windows on your home for the historical aesthetic. The kind of place with a mayor well into his 4th decade of office. Wanting to get any meaningful reform is a pipe-dream.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
thaumaturgy 12y ago
I'm entirely disinterested in the whole Uber vs. the cities show, but every comment thread on it is sort of neat as a study in personalities. Broadly speaking, there are rule-followers and rule-breakers. (If you subscribe to Kohlberg's theory of moral development, these are stage 4 vs. stage 6 arguments, though I don't want to make any implications here on which group is "more moral".) The rule-followers hold laws as the highest moral authority, and if the laws are wrong, then what you're supposed to do is follow the rules to change the laws. The rule-breakers hold their personal ideals as the highest moral authority, and if the laws are wrong, then what you're supposed to do is circumvent, subvert, or break them. And these two groups are driving eachother nuts, and it happens in almost every single discussion because Uber is possibly one of the most distilled examples of a company of rule-breakers in recent history. Their response to Charleston is a classic example: "sure, OK, fine our drivers, we'll just keep breaking the laws anyway, because we disagree with them." To respond directly to your comment, you're right that Charleston's laws might exist for a good reason. But, unless Charleston can explain that reason, Uber's supporters will continue to argue that the law is irrelevant. And, if Charleston were to follow something like your suggestion, and say, "no, really, our law is actually very important, we're going to break you if you don't follow it", then Uber's supporters would only become even more vocal.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  This is an interesting observation and, generally speaking, I agree with it. But there is something else at issue as well: democratic legitimacy. By any normal definition of the term, ordinances imposed by the City of Charleston are imposed by a democratically elected government. Moreover, it is a municipal government which, at least in theory, is the most democratically responsive unit of government there is. If Uber were operating in an oppressive dictatorship, I would be a lot more sympathetic to Uber's plight. But at least in theory, the laws they are ignoring in Charleston are laws enacted by representatives of the people of Charleston! I suspect that Uber's supporters here will argue that this is really only a fiction and that the residents of Charleston agree with Uber, and not their own government. This is possible -- though I doubt anyone here actually knows if this is true, and it ignores the fact that, in a representative democracy, representatives are not expected to do only what their constituents want. In any case, it's interesting to think about how commenters' attitudes about Uber relate to their views about democratic government.
golemotron 12y ago
The power dynamic between law and technology is strange. In general, it seems that technology wins if can get a foothold and build a user base of people who feel the benefits are worth more than the downsides. It's another form of democracy. Law always gets the last word though. The thing that's interesting is that the US seems to let things go for a while before clamping down. The whole "present a warning about browser cookies" thing in the EU is a bit of a disaster.
briandh 12y ago
> But we are bound even by laws that we think are stupid According to whom / by what creed? I certainly do not believe that, and it is clear that a large chunk of the country does not either, if you look at the routine flouting, of, for instance, jaywalking laws, underage drinking laws, gambling laws, marijuana laws, and so on.

jmckib 12y ago

I agree with your point that in general one shouldn't be able to use money to skirt the law, but I can hardly be infuriated with Uber for violating laws that only exist to fleece consumers by preventing competition in the taxi industry. To make an analogy, it's clear that civil disobedience should not be practiced against laws forbidding murder or theft, but in the case of jim crow laws or similarly unjust laws I would fully support acts of civil disobedience.

pdabbadabba 12y ago
I can't say I'm persuaded by the civil-rights-era civil disobedience analogy. While I might support civil disobedience to help rectify a centuries-long history of racial discrimination, I can't say I feel the same way about helping consumers find a cheaper and easier way to get around town (or to help drivers sell time and space in their car without getting a taxi license). And this is, of course, to ignore the real motive: Uber is actually only flouting the law in order to make a profit. Not exactly Selma. Also, does it not bother you that this particular form of civil disobedience is only available with extremely deep pockets?
- thrill 12y ago
  Bad laws make for bad liberty.
  - krapp 12y ago
    Every company believes the laws which interfere with their capacity for profit are bad laws. That doesn't actually make them so.
  - pdabbadabba 12y ago
    I'm not sure I understand your point. Is it that you should be free to disregard any law you think is bad, because these bad laws infringe on your liberty?
    - icebraining 12y ago
      Free from what? Legal consequences, social recrimination or moral guilt? The answers are not necessarily the same. One could argue the Uber should be punished, but that they should do it anyway.

67726e 12y ago

To be entirely fair, this is a city that setup a sting operation to give bike-taxi drivers $1000 fines for giving impromptu tours of the peninsula. It's the kind of place that requires you to keep the horrible single-pane windows on your home for the historical aesthetic. The kind of place with a mayor well into his 4th decade of office. Wanting to get any meaningful reform is a pipe-dream.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

thaumaturgy 12y ago

I'm entirely disinterested in the whole Uber vs. the cities show, but every comment thread on it is sort of neat as a study in personalities. Broadly speaking, there are rule-followers and rule-breakers. (If you subscribe to Kohlberg's theory of moral development, these are stage 4 vs. stage 6 arguments, though I don't want to make any implications here on which group is "more moral".) The rule-followers hold laws as the highest moral authority, and if the laws are wrong, then what you're supposed to do is follow the rules to change the laws. The rule-breakers hold their personal ideals as the highest moral authority, and if the laws are wrong, then what you're supposed to do is circumvent, subvert, or break them. And these two groups are driving eachother nuts, and it happens in almost every single discussion because Uber is possibly one of the most distilled examples of a company of rule-breakers in recent history. Their response to Charleston is a classic example: "sure, OK, fine our drivers, we'll just keep breaking the laws anyway, because we disagree with them." To respond directly to your comment, you're right that Charleston's laws might exist for a good reason. But, unless Charleston can explain that reason, Uber's supporters will continue to argue that the law is irrelevant. And, if Charleston were to follow something like your suggestion, and say, "no, really, our law is actually very important, we're going to break you if you don't follow it", then Uber's supporters would only become even more vocal.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
pdabbadabba 12y ago
This is an interesting observation and, generally speaking, I agree with it. But there is something else at issue as well: democratic legitimacy. By any normal definition of the term, ordinances imposed by the City of Charleston are imposed by a democratically elected government. Moreover, it is a municipal government which, at least in theory, is the most democratically responsive unit of government there is. If Uber were operating in an oppressive dictatorship, I would be a lot more sympathetic to Uber's plight. But at least in theory, the laws they are ignoring in Charleston are laws enacted by representatives of the people of Charleston! I suspect that Uber's supporters here will argue that this is really only a fiction and that the residents of Charleston agree with Uber, and not their own government. This is possible -- though I doubt anyone here actually knows if this is true, and it ignores the fact that, in a representative democracy, representatives are not expected to do only what their constituents want. In any case, it's interesting to think about how commenters' attitudes about Uber relate to their views about democratic government.

golemotron 12y ago

The power dynamic between law and technology is strange. In general, it seems that technology wins if can get a foothold and build a user base of people who feel the benefits are worth more than the downsides. It's another form of democracy. Law always gets the last word though. The thing that's interesting is that the US seems to let things go for a while before clamping down. The whole "present a warning about browser cookies" thing in the EU is a bit of a disaster.

briandh 12y ago

> But we are bound even by laws that we think are stupid According to whom / by what creed? I certainly do not believe that, and it is clear that a large chunk of the country does not either, if you look at the routine flouting, of, for instance, jaywalking laws, underage drinking laws, gambling laws, marijuana laws, and so on.