Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

Re:Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll P... by wonder_er on Friday November 13, 2020 @03:19PM (#25086969)

> we might need to protect the Uber driver who voluntary gets into their car.

By "protect" you seem to suggest "outlaw the thing they want to do".

Can you imagine how outraged you'd feel, to be treated the way you're suggesting treating others?

How would you like for the state to say:

"Hey, /u/slg, for your own protection, you're not allowed to eat sugar anymore. It is now illegal to buy and sell sugar. You'll be fined if you try to purchase sugar, and if you're found with sugar in your house, you'll be taken to jail. These threats are, of course, for your protection, as the harmful effects of sugar are well-established."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll P... by jakelazaroff on Friday November 13, 2020 @03:37PM (#25087167)

You can make that exact same argument against labor laws, consumer protection laws, building codes, etc. "How would you like for the state to tell you that you can't buy a house with lead paint?"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll P... by slg on Friday November 13, 2020 @03:39PM (#25087194)

Yes, I can imagine being outraged in that situation. However I would also understand this is how life in a society works. Sometimes my personal needs come second to the needs of the society.

I don't personally agree with the US's war on drugs for example. There is probably an argument that on total sugar is more damaging to American society than marijuana. If society decided to ban sugar, I wouldn't be thrilled, but I would understand it.

[ Parent | on HN ]