No one's saying that two people can't make a "consensual exchange of value" of legal actions. I can't make a "consensual exchange of value" by paying a mob hitman to kill someone that I don't like.

This is a good thing, and this is not antithetical to a free society.

Did you just compare listing illegal rental on some website to murder?

Laws are laws, your insinuation of general corruption isn't really fair, the onus would be on you to prove that.

Both Uber and AirBnB knowingly break the law as part of their business model.

Zoning doesn't allow the kind of business that AirBnB has, they just don't care.

One could very well argue that maybe the laws need reform (as I do) but that's another story; the inherent ethos of YC et. al. is to err on the side of breaking the rules.

Shitty rules that don't serve people need to be broken. I want to see my property value go up, not down so some hipster developer can afford it.

"Shitty rules that don't serve people need to be broken."

Surely that's true, but nobody can agree on which exact rules need to be broken. :)

So you'll forgive me when I call the police because you're building favelas in your back yard and have 20 micro-rentals.

> The idea that two people can't make a consensual exchange of value is antithetical to a free society.

If you rely on the power of the state to be the ultimate enforcer of contracts and property rights, the state has the right and duty to delineate which contracts it will enforce.