4 ms·

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,

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.
- zo1 12y ago
  "are laws enacted by representatives of the people of Charleston!" Obviously not all of the people of Charleston, but that's a big discussion on mob-rule. And you completely disregard the disconnect between "people of Charleston" and their representatives. Two separate and distinct groups. And the connection between them does not necessarily imply that the actions of the representatives is representative of the will of the people of Charleston. "it ignores the fact that, in a representative democracy, representatives are not expected to do only what their constituents want." Ah yes, I just got to this part and you did mention it. Bravo, you've successfully dismantled Democracy without meaning to. Now if you could just take the next moral and logical leap, I've got some good literature regarding this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
- 67726e 12y ago
  > in Charleston are laws enacted by representatives of the people of Charleston! Because, as you know, there is not a single bit of interference from money in politics or bullshit party politics, or cronyism. No sir! We'll have none of that in good 'ol Chucktown.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
pdabbadabba 12y ago
> Uber is possibly one of the most distilled examples of a company of rule-breakers in recent history. This, by the way, is probably not true. It is just the first internet-popular rule breaker in recent history. It is pretty easy to imagine an alternate universe where commenters on a popular internet forum supported, e.g., large power companies' treating environmental fines as simply a cost of doing business, instead of attempting to comply with them, because they see cheap power for industry and progress as more important than environmental concerns.
- bobcostas55 12y ago
  The analogy doesn't work because pollution is an actual negative externality, there's demonstrable harm being done and if they're not paying fines (or fines are too low), they are reaping disproportionate benefits from it. On the other hand, I can only see positive externalities from Uber.
  - pdabbadabba 12y ago
    Preliminarily, note that whether you characterize an externality as negative or positive is a value-laden judgment. One of our power-company-apologists might well say the same thing if they had a certain moral/political outlook. And if you literally can't think of any negative externalities that Uber generates, I submit that you haven't approached the problem dispassionately. As people have repeatedly pointed out, there are concerns about Uber's liability insurance (even now that it offers its own limited coverage -- externality: uncompensated, injured people), policy concerns about surge pricing (externality: people can't afford to get where they're going at peak usage times), policy concerns that Uber drivers are free to turn down passengers (externality: possible discrimination), concerns that decrentalization makes it more difficult to ensure that vehicles are safe for passengers (externality: possible injuries), concerns that decentralization makes it more difficult to ensure that drivers have safe driving records and clean criminal histories (externality: possible crime against passengers more possible injuries), difficulty verifying that drivers are actually covered by the insurance that they (and Uber) claim covers them in the absence of formal licensing (externality: uncompensated injuries). These are just off the top of my head. Maybe you don't find all of these these persuasive, and maybe you think that the benefits of Uber outweigh all of these (I happen to agree!). And, to be clear, I think that Uber is doing much (MUCH) less harm than most serial polluters by ignoring the relevant regulations. The point, though, is just that Uber isn't the first company to take the attitude that it is free to ignore the law. It's just the first one I can think of that is also popular.
arjie 12y ago
I disagree with rule-breakers being intrinsically Stage 6 in Kohlberg's stages. Such breaking of rules must be based on reasoning from ethical first principles. So, for instance, if I reason "I am hungry and bread will sate me therefore I will break into this bakery and eat the bread" I am not performing any moral reasoning at all even though I'm a rule breaker. It's not categorical. From what I can see, there doesn't seem to be a moral categorical imperative behind the choices that the 'rule-breakers' here are making. They are doing so because it is expedient. They make more money in an easier way by breaking the rule and so they do it. If we applied the universality required here to that, this must mean that anyone who can make money in an easier way by breaking it, should. Of course we could describe the Uber-side here as relentless warriors for freedom, but that is unlikely to be accurate. Uber drivers I have spoken to do not have that as a prime motivation. I take Uber every day, and love it, but I feel you're not describing the situation accurately.
- thaumaturgy 12y ago
  The commentary I've noticed most often from Uber supporters -- not necessarily Uber itself or its drivers, btw -- is that the laws are stale, outdated, and unjust because they exist to protect cab companies from competition, and that Uber is just trying to meet customer demand in what should be a free market. The drivers themselves may well only do it for the money, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if Uber's actual sole purpose is making money, but the overwhelming commentary from Uber's spokerspersons has been centered around providing a service that people want, which keeps the debate framed on the ethics of rule-following vs. rule-breaking.

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.

zo1 12y ago
"are laws enacted by representatives of the people of Charleston!" Obviously not all of the people of Charleston, but that's a big discussion on mob-rule. And you completely disregard the disconnect between "people of Charleston" and their representatives. Two separate and distinct groups. And the connection between them does not necessarily imply that the actions of the representatives is representative of the will of the people of Charleston. "it ignores the fact that, in a representative democracy, representatives are not expected to do only what their constituents want." Ah yes, I just got to this part and you did mention it. Bravo, you've successfully dismantled Democracy without meaning to. Now if you could just take the next moral and logical leap, I've got some good literature regarding this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
67726e 12y ago
> in Charleston are laws enacted by representatives of the people of Charleston! Because, as you know, there is not a single bit of interference from money in politics or bullshit party politics, or cronyism. No sir! We'll have none of that in good 'ol Chucktown.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

pdabbadabba 12y ago

> Uber is possibly one of the most distilled examples of a company of rule-breakers in recent history. This, by the way, is probably not true. It is just the first internet-popular rule breaker in recent history. It is pretty easy to imagine an alternate universe where commenters on a popular internet forum supported, e.g., large power companies' treating environmental fines as simply a cost of doing business, instead of attempting to comply with them, because they see cheap power for industry and progress as more important than environmental concerns.

bobcostas55 12y ago
The analogy doesn't work because pollution is an actual negative externality, there's demonstrable harm being done and if they're not paying fines (or fines are too low), they are reaping disproportionate benefits from it. On the other hand, I can only see positive externalities from Uber.
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  Preliminarily, note that whether you characterize an externality as negative or positive is a value-laden judgment. One of our power-company-apologists might well say the same thing if they had a certain moral/political outlook. And if you literally can't think of any negative externalities that Uber generates, I submit that you haven't approached the problem dispassionately. As people have repeatedly pointed out, there are concerns about Uber's liability insurance (even now that it offers its own limited coverage -- externality: uncompensated, injured people), policy concerns about surge pricing (externality: people can't afford to get where they're going at peak usage times), policy concerns that Uber drivers are free to turn down passengers (externality: possible discrimination), concerns that decrentalization makes it more difficult to ensure that vehicles are safe for passengers (externality: possible injuries), concerns that decentralization makes it more difficult to ensure that drivers have safe driving records and clean criminal histories (externality: possible crime against passengers more possible injuries), difficulty verifying that drivers are actually covered by the insurance that they (and Uber) claim covers them in the absence of formal licensing (externality: uncompensated injuries). These are just off the top of my head. Maybe you don't find all of these these persuasive, and maybe you think that the benefits of Uber outweigh all of these (I happen to agree!). And, to be clear, I think that Uber is doing much (MUCH) less harm than most serial polluters by ignoring the relevant regulations. The point, though, is just that Uber isn't the first company to take the attitude that it is free to ignore the law. It's just the first one I can think of that is also popular.

arjie 12y ago

I disagree with rule-breakers being intrinsically Stage 6 in Kohlberg's stages. Such breaking of rules must be based on reasoning from ethical first principles. So, for instance, if I reason "I am hungry and bread will sate me therefore I will break into this bakery and eat the bread" I am not performing any moral reasoning at all even though I'm a rule breaker. It's not categorical. From what I can see, there doesn't seem to be a moral categorical imperative behind the choices that the 'rule-breakers' here are making. They are doing so because it is expedient. They make more money in an easier way by breaking the rule and so they do it. If we applied the universality required here to that, this must mean that anyone who can make money in an easier way by breaking it, should. Of course we could describe the Uber-side here as relentless warriors for freedom, but that is unlikely to be accurate. Uber drivers I have spoken to do not have that as a prime motivation. I take Uber every day, and love it, but I feel you're not describing the situation accurately.

thaumaturgy 12y ago
The commentary I've noticed most often from Uber supporters -- not necessarily Uber itself or its drivers, btw -- is that the laws are stale, outdated, and unjust because they exist to protect cab companies from competition, and that Uber is just trying to meet customer demand in what should be a free market. The drivers themselves may well only do it for the money, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if Uber's actual sole purpose is making money, but the overwhelming commentary from Uber's spokerspersons has been centered around providing a service that people want, which keeps the debate framed on the ethics of rule-following vs. rule-breaking.