News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Reasons not to use Uber. Parent comment

Re:Reasons not to use Uber by smsm42 on Saturday November 12, 2016 @01:17PM (#12939236)
It doesn't matter. If GM sponsored a law that won't specifically target Toyota but all cars competing with GM cars, not naming Toyota by name - the argument "it's illegal" would be as disingenuous. It's subverting the meaning of the word to make it serve special interest. We think illegal things are bad, because we assume there are just laws that ban bad things from happening. So if we make a law banning somebody from competing with us, they'd be "illegal" and thus bad. But it's easy to see through this - sometimes "illegal" means just "bad law" and not "bad thing". US has a history of many extremely bad laws, I won't list them because I am sure you can name them by yourself, and even more laws that aren't as bad as those but merely self-serving and protecting some special interest. Laws against Uber and Airbnb usually are of this kind.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reasons not to use Uber by ethbro on Saturday November 12, 2016 @02:31PM (#12939706)
> So if we make a law banning somebody from competing with us, they'd be "illegal" and thus bad.

You're still missing (or strawmanning) the order of the events parent is referring to.

An analogy would be closer to the US deciding headlights were a required safety feature. Then at some point after that Chrysler realizes they can duct tape glow sticks to the bonnet and cut costs.

Doing so is illegal, they knew it would be illegal, and they still chose to make it their business model.

Whether the laws being broken serve a societal purpose is another question, but one that can't be hand waived away by saying "Some laws are bad. AirBnB has legal troubles. Therefore the laws AirBnB is breaking are bad."

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reasons not to use Uber by marssaxman on Saturday November 12, 2016 @07:33PM (#12941095)
In this case Chrysler is using shiny new high-tech glowsticks of a sort that nobody had imagined when the laws were written, and they actually do a better job than the legally-mandated electric headlights.

Forcing the law to change and catch up with the times can therefore be seen as an important public service.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reasons not to use Uber by ethbro on Saturday November 12, 2016 @10:49PM (#12941754)
It's possible that glowsticks are a better solution to the problem and that the laws should change. After all, glowsticks weren't a technological possibility when it was written.

I think the exasperation I (and others) seem to have with AirBnB/Uber/their supporters' sometimes-arguments are that they skip right over the "changing the law" piece. That's a pain in the ass and a lot of drudgery to be sure. But personally, I prefer to live in a society with a moderate amount of respect for the rule of all laws. Because the alternative of getting into a front-on collision at night with an unlit car sucks.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reasons not to use Uber by soufron on Saturday November 12, 2016 @07:01PM (#12940952)
The Law is the expression of the People. If they're not happy with the Law, then they just got to get a new one. Good luck to them.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reasons not to use Uber by thrownblown on Saturday November 12, 2016 @02:30PM (#12939699)
The usa already have a 500% tarrif on Chinese steel.

I dont think were gonna get rid of that in the next 4 years.

[ Parent | on HN ]