Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> 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."




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.


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.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: