541–550 of 596 posts
Lots of Anarcho-Kapitalists drunk on Ayn Rand Kool Aid. Travis is a criminal who has marketed his breaking of labor laws, civil laws as "disruption". Maybe this is what will happen you get billions of investment dollars without earning through old fashioned way of making profits. Financialism has blinded America.
Lots of Anarcho-Kapitalists drunk on Ayn Rand Kool Aid. Travis is a criminal who has marketed his breaking of labor laws, civil laws as "disruption". Maybe this is what will happen you get billions of investment dollars without earning through old fashioned way of making profits. Financialism has blinded America.
The laws in question are tyrannical infringements of personal liberty. You don't have a right to prohibit people from trading a service for money.
Please don't post ideological talking points to HN. This kind of generic argument is never interesting and therefore always off topic on the site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. Just saying that's available to corporations as well. Reason I mention is this: "companies do not engage in civil disobedience" is not only not true; we need and should expect companies to engage in civil disobedience. Edit: To be clear, I am not talking at all about Greyball. I mean cases where civil disobedience would actually be justified.
I am not sure why you think that companies do or should engage in civil disobedience. When companies want to change laws, they lobby the government, in part because telling one's employees to break the law is criminal conspiracy and very expensive, given how much power companies have & employees don't. Sure, corporations sometimes do act in the public interest and sometimes act in the interest of justice. However, le…
(1) Why should we not welcome civil disobedience then or call it anything other than "civil disobedience"?
(2) In a judicial context, what specifically do you believe would stop the same sentencing considerations from applying to corporations? Sentencing guidelines? Judicial precedent?
Criminal procedure is not my field, so there's a possibility I am making some basic mistaken assumption - please correct me if so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it an overreach to define finding who is a LEO and feeding them false information to deceive them and waste their time as obstruction of justice?
Because protectionist taxi regulations enacted and enforced by local officials are a local issue. Just because the DOJ can shoehorn a legal argument together to assert jurisdiction doesn't mean it isn't yet another overreach by the already bloated bureaucracy known as the United States government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because protectionist taxi regulations enacted and enforced by local officials are a local issue. Just because the DOJ can shoehorn a legal argument together to assert jurisdiction doesn't mean it isn't yet another overreach by the already bloated bureaucracy known as the United States government.
It's not a local issue when a multinational organization is doing the same thing across an entire country. Then it's rightly a federal issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>why would or should ideological motivation be relevant to whether or not any given act is legal or how it should be punished? When libertarians, for whatever reason, choose to start businesses in CA, they are explicitly consenting to our government & to obeying our democratically enacted laws. Ideology is not a shield for consequences--and, for both Travis & Ross, using Ayn Rand to justify their behavior only makes…
I did not say that ideology does not matter. I asked why it should be relevant to the definition of a crime or whether or not it ought to be punished. (my words could've been tighter here: ideology, like civil disobedience, may be relevant to mitigation--or it may increase liability & punishment.) I also did not say that "valuing liberty" has a negative influence. That is not how I was using the word "libertarian" No…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Routinely spent $40 on a taxi from Boston (Logan) Airport to Cambridge (Central Square) as a student. Couldn't really afford it but redeyes often leave one lacking for options. To your point of regulation and pricing, I'd happily accept less "professionalism" for a sensible discount—say $10-15 rides.
And yet, there's a way to get from Central Square to Logan for about $2.25 for those who are cost sensitive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I generally agree with your sentiment, but just to give another perspective I thought I should point out that there's a significant difference between those that can afford to travel to Europe and hail a ride from a "professionally licensed driver", and those that can afford to spend $3.41* to pool home from Boston to Cambridge at 2:30am on a Thursday night, with a guy returning home from work looking to make a few e…
> with a guy returning home from work looking to make a few extra bucks, and three pickups along the way happy to get home affordably Sounds nice, but I never had a single Uber driver that was doing it as a "casual" thing, or just to cover his fuel expenses and make some money on the side. It's a fulltime job for the vast majority of Uber drivers.
NYC, Bay Area: full-timers. Mid-west, PNW: "casual" part-timers
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not sure why you think that companies do or should engage in civil disobedience. When companies want to change laws, they lobby the government, in part because telling one's employees to break the law is criminal conspiracy and very expensive, given how much power companies have & employees don't. Sure, corporations sometimes do act in the public interest and sometimes act in the interest of justice. However, le…
Take PRISM for example, or imagine a Muslim registry - or any other scenario where government requires companies to comply with a scheme and the company's appropriate ethical response would be refusal. (1) Why should we not welcome civil disobedience then or call it anything other than "civil disobedience"? (2) In a judicial context, what specifically do you believe would stop the same sentencing considerations from…
The government does not require companies to comply with a scheme. Companies are free to contract with the government, but certainly aren't forced. PRISM & Muslim registries are also edge cases. There are many companies who choose not to do any work with the military, defense industry, or even gun, drug, or tobacco companies for ethical reasons. Most companies will allow their employees to opt not to work on projects that violate their ethics or values. However, a company would certainly be within their rights to fire an employee for refusing to participate in a project. (its not a smart move, nor does it help with retention of other employees) None of this is, by any means, civil disobedience--nor are ethics and civil disobedience interchangeable. (& it doesn't have to be illegal to be unethical--but civil disobedience is about law-breaking.)
As you may remember, the courts would not permit the government to force Apple to build decryption software to crack that iphone.
And we should not welcome all or encourage civil disobedience. We should just create just laws. Also, we should not redefine or expand the definition of civil disobedience.
Civil disobedience is not a "sentencing consideration." All of this is so inside baseball that it'd take explaining all of civil & criminal procedure in order for you to understand. It would take me a long time to make it both clear and accurate and the payoff would not be worth it. Sorry, but yes, you are making many mistaken assumptions:)
There are many public policy reasons why corporations do not & are not considered to engage in civil disobedience. Here's a few quick ones: we don't want companies to direct their employees to break the law or ignore health safety or environmental regulations, or to encourage the formation of criminal enterprises, most (99%?) are defined by a profit-making purpose & this undermines that (& create shareholder lawsuits.) and, despite Citizens United, the overwhelming majority of our laws do not treat corporations as people. For instance, corporations, legally speaking, are not considered to have mens rea or intentions.
TLDR: Citizens United aside, it is actually just not useful or accurate to consider corporations as people, because they aren't. As far as our legal system goes, humans have intentions & a state of mind and corporations don't.
(Feel argue they do, but, as far as the US legal system goes, they don't. And shouldn't. Because they actually don't. So, please, don't. Or, just don't expect my response).