
Uber is leaving Austin letter - hartator
https://medium.com/@hartator/uber-leaving-austin-letter-ed1f14abdd0c#.998u6abxa
======
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11652614](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11652614)

------
draw_down
Doesn't say anything about why they "simply cannot operate" in Austin. Sounds
like they just don't want to anymore. The voters made their decision and
Uber/Lyft are taking their ball and going home, I don't see why the Council
should be "backwards".

------
andreasklinger
Anyone complaining about how changing laws destroy businesses, remember that
coca cola used to contain cocaine and 7up contained uppers (lithium citrate).

Entrepreneurship is about making it work within the regulations society think
it needs.

~~~
gwright
I find this type of assertion with respect to Uber, Lyft, and startups in
general uninteresting because it avoids taking a position on the wisdom of the
regulations.

I realize that there is room for reasonable people to debate as to whether
Uber, for example, has played by the existing rules but that is a
categorically different discussion as to the value and wisdom of those rules.

So there seems to be four positions:

    
    
        1) the rules are proper and should be followed                 (status quo)
        2) the rules are proper and should not be followed             (self contradictory)
        3) the rules are improper and should be followed until changed (rule of law)
        4) the rules are improper and should be actively resisted      (civil disobedience)
    

Arguing in favor of adhering to the rules without taking a position on the
propriety of those rules (failing to choose between 1 and 3) is what I find
uninteresting. Pick a side and make your case.

Even more confusing and destructive to reasonable discussion is asserting that
the rules must be followed as a response to someone arguing that the rules
should be changed. That is a category error and adds nothing to the
discussion.

