4 ms·
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 on
by 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 agoI 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 agoBad laws make for bad liberty.
- krapp 12y agoEvery company believes the laws which interfere with their capacity for profit are bad laws. That doesn't actually make them so.
- pdabbadabba 12y agoI'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 agoFree 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.