6 ms·

Reading things like this make me OK with startups bending an even breaking the occasional law if they're truly providing something of value. The legal system is

by kyro 12y ago

Reading things like this make me OK with startups bending an even breaking the occasional law if they're truly providing something of value. The legal system is rife with regulations and actors that are often not intended to benefit the public. There is nothing inherently right or efficient about it, and it's the oldest and most inflexible of the man-made institutions, behind Comcast.

josho 12y ago
Agreed, but I also hope that the regulators catch up and make sane decisions to correct the current environment. For example, at the forefront of my mind is the need for consumers and the state to have assurances that the drivers of these services have commercial insurance. Or that it truly is a ride-sharing lookup, not a taxi service. I'm sure there are other issues that need sorting, but as an outsider much of the taxi industry's regulations seem like they can be modernized for a post uber/lyft world.
- kyro 12y ago
  Absolutely. I'm not advocating that we do away with the regulatory system, but that those drafting the rules look at startups like Uber/Lyft as signals and catalysts for change as opposed to reflexively treating them as threats on the system that Has Been And Always Shall Be. The world is changing rapidly, new needs and demands emerge, others die, and the red tape should be in constant reapplication, in tow.
- pmorici 12y ago
  "assurances that the drivers of these services have commercial insurance." I'm not sure about the situation in California but I looked into how taxis were insured in Maryland and it turns out they basically don't have insurance. They are only required to have a certain amount of cash in an account that acts like insurance if something happens. I believe the amount was around $30,000 which is very very little if something legitimately serious were to happen. Which is why I find it funny when people think taxis are some how better insured than ride share services.
  - oasisbob 12y ago
    I believe bonds in lieu of insurance are commonly allowed across the US, though maybe not for taxis? As the fleet size increases, the amount of the bond goes up as well -- essentially giving companies the choice of self insuring. I'd be surprised if many independent operators were self-bonded. And of course, it's not like the minimum insurance requirements are great across the board either.
    - aianus 12y ago
      > And of course, it's not like the minimum insurance requirements are great across the board either. The alternative is something like Toronto where personal car insurance costs upwards of $300 a month for a 23 year old male with no tickets or accidents because the minimum coverage is so extensive.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    What? They must have insurance, and the state minimum is $30,000 per person. > The Maryland General Assembly approved the increase in April, slightly upping legal minimum insurance coverage to at least $30,000 per person and $60,000 per crash.
    - pmorici 12y ago
      Yeah, but they have a special program for Taxi's that allow what they call "self-insurance" where the taxi is insured by a bond or letter of credit with the MVA.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - aianus 12y ago
        In most places you can self-insure as a rich individual driving a personal car too.
        12y ago
ChiperSoft 12y ago
I hope you mean just regulatory laws. If not, you might have a comfortable position waiting for you in the mafia.
- tn13 12y ago
  The lines between Mafia and tech entrepreneurs are not very clear. Threatening competitors of legal action and keeping salaries of employees lower sounds more like a Mafia and less like a tech entrepreneur to me.
  - asdfologist 12y ago
    Agreed. Tech entrepreneurs murder their competitors and extort people using physical violence all the time.
    - n09n 12y ago
      Is that really how you think the mafia behaves? I wonder if that should be considered a PR problem or a huge success.
      - mpyne 12y ago
        Just because the mafia doesn't simply break knees randomly doesn't mean that the threat of violence doesn't underpin the mafia's operations. Yes, this includes targeted killings and violent extortion when required. Since this threat has been proven credible it's normally not required to actually break people; people simply give up before the tire irons have to be brought out.
        tn13 12y ago
        Yes and large co bosses also behave in a similar fashion. Very often the kind of people Mafia deals with is the one that normally does not have anything other then their life to lose, but when it comes to large co bosses they are dealing with people who have too much to lose and hence a mere threat of legal action works even if that legal action is totally frivolous.
guelo 12y ago
Just occasionally dumping arsenic in your drinking water. Occasionally some rat droppings in your meal. Just a little bit of bait and switch scam. Occasionally sneaking in hidden fees. But we're providing something of value!
- kyro 12y ago
  i always assumed civets had the market, but never considered rats
bowlofpetunias 12y ago
Organizations deliberately breaking the law for profit is generally called "organized crime". Drug dealers provide something of value and personally I think we would be way better off if drugs were legalized. So we're going to call our local drugs-gangs "disruptive startups" now? 90% procent of the time these companies are simply breaking privacy, consumer protection and labor laws for one reason and one reason only: greed. So occasionally they may stumble upon a law that actually needs reform. Even a broken clock is right twice per day. That doesn't make me okay with OK with breaking the law as a business strategy, especially since most of the time it isn't the Comcasts of this world that suffer the consequences, but individual workers and consumers. This Robin Hood worship is pathetic. These startups are not making the world a better place.
- DanielBMarkham 12y ago
  >> Organizations deliberately breaking the law for profit is generally called "organized crime". You know, I actually agree with you, by the definitions of things we have in place today, that is, in fact, organized crime. And since most people violate three laws a day, and we use various corporate affiliations to do it, it would follow that we are all members of a vast organized crime syndicate. Going to need some bigger prisons.
- industriousthou 12y ago
  >>Drug dealers provide something of value and personally I think we would be way better off if drugs were legalized. So we're going to call our local drugs-gangs "disruptive startups" now? Don't know about "local drug-gangs," but yeah, I see my friendly, neighborhood reefer dealer as an entrepreneur who provides a valued service.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  These startups are not making the world a better place. As opposed to governments gone berserk?

by kyro 12y ago

josho 12y ago

Agreed, but I also hope that the regulators catch up and make sane decisions to correct the current environment. For example, at the forefront of my mind is the need for consumers and the state to have assurances that the drivers of these services have commercial insurance. Or that it truly is a ride-sharing lookup, not a taxi service. I'm sure there are other issues that need sorting, but as an outsider much of the taxi industry's regulations seem like they can be modernized for a post uber/lyft world.

kyro 12y ago
Absolutely. I'm not advocating that we do away with the regulatory system, but that those drafting the rules look at startups like Uber/Lyft as signals and catalysts for change as opposed to reflexively treating them as threats on the system that Has Been And Always Shall Be. The world is changing rapidly, new needs and demands emerge, others die, and the red tape should be in constant reapplication, in tow.
pmorici 12y ago
"assurances that the drivers of these services have commercial insurance." I'm not sure about the situation in California but I looked into how taxis were insured in Maryland and it turns out they basically don't have insurance. They are only required to have a certain amount of cash in an account that acts like insurance if something happens. I believe the amount was around $30,000 which is very very little if something legitimately serious were to happen. Which is why I find it funny when people think taxis are some how better insured than ride share services.
- oasisbob 12y ago
  I believe bonds in lieu of insurance are commonly allowed across the US, though maybe not for taxis? As the fleet size increases, the amount of the bond goes up as well -- essentially giving companies the choice of self insuring. I'd be surprised if many independent operators were self-bonded. And of course, it's not like the minimum insurance requirements are great across the board either.
  - aianus 12y ago
    > And of course, it's not like the minimum insurance requirements are great across the board either. The alternative is something like Toronto where personal car insurance costs upwards of $300 a month for a 23 year old male with no tickets or accidents because the minimum coverage is so extensive.
- DanBC 12y ago
  What? They must have insurance, and the state minimum is $30,000 per person. > The Maryland General Assembly approved the increase in April, slightly upping legal minimum insurance coverage to at least $30,000 per person and $60,000 per crash.
  - pmorici 12y ago
    Yeah, but they have a special program for Taxi's that allow what they call "self-insurance" where the taxi is insured by a bond or letter of credit with the MVA.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - aianus 12y ago
      In most places you can self-insure as a rich individual driving a personal car too.
      - 12y ago

ChiperSoft 12y ago

I hope you mean just regulatory laws. If not, you might have a comfortable position waiting for you in the mafia.

tn13 12y ago
The lines between Mafia and tech entrepreneurs are not very clear. Threatening competitors of legal action and keeping salaries of employees lower sounds more like a Mafia and less like a tech entrepreneur to me.
- asdfologist 12y ago
  Agreed. Tech entrepreneurs murder their competitors and extort people using physical violence all the time.
  - n09n 12y ago
    Is that really how you think the mafia behaves? I wonder if that should be considered a PR problem or a huge success.
    - mpyne 12y ago
      Just because the mafia doesn't simply break knees randomly doesn't mean that the threat of violence doesn't underpin the mafia's operations. Yes, this includes targeted killings and violent extortion when required. Since this threat has been proven credible it's normally not required to actually break people; people simply give up before the tire irons have to be brought out.
      - tn13 12y ago
        Yes and large co bosses also behave in a similar fashion. Very often the kind of people Mafia deals with is the one that normally does not have anything other then their life to lose, but when it comes to large co bosses they are dealing with people who have too much to lose and hence a mere threat of legal action works even if that legal action is totally frivolous.

guelo 12y ago

Just occasionally dumping arsenic in your drinking water. Occasionally some rat droppings in your meal. Just a little bit of bait and switch scam. Occasionally sneaking in hidden fees. But we're providing something of value!

kyro 12y ago
i always assumed civets had the market, but never considered rats

bowlofpetunias 12y ago

Organizations deliberately breaking the law for profit is generally called "organized crime". Drug dealers provide something of value and personally I think we would be way better off if drugs were legalized. So we're going to call our local drugs-gangs "disruptive startups" now? 90% procent of the time these companies are simply breaking privacy, consumer protection and labor laws for one reason and one reason only: greed. So occasionally they may stumble upon a law that actually needs reform. Even a broken clock is right twice per day. That doesn't make me okay with OK with breaking the law as a business strategy, especially since most of the time it isn't the Comcasts of this world that suffer the consequences, but individual workers and consumers. This Robin Hood worship is pathetic. These startups are not making the world a better place.

DanielBMarkham 12y ago
>> Organizations deliberately breaking the law for profit is generally called "organized crime". You know, I actually agree with you, by the definitions of things we have in place today, that is, in fact, organized crime. And since most people violate three laws a day, and we use various corporate affiliations to do it, it would follow that we are all members of a vast organized crime syndicate. Going to need some bigger prisons.
industriousthou 12y ago
>>Drug dealers provide something of value and personally I think we would be way better off if drugs were legalized. So we're going to call our local drugs-gangs "disruptive startups" now? Don't know about "local drug-gangs," but yeah, I see my friendly, neighborhood reefer dealer as an entrepreneur who provides a valued service.
CamperBob2 12y ago
These startups are not making the world a better place. As opposed to governments gone berserk?