[HappyTypist]

I think it's important to ask if the laws are necessary or helpful. To use an analogy, would you support a South Korean company who lets consumers use Firefox for online shopping, instead of the state-mandated IE ActiveX control?

For me personally, Uber's expansion has convinced me the regulation around ridesharing does not need to go beyond wha t Uber already does. I can give zero shits that some public bureaucratic can't flex its authority.

[coldtea]

>I think it's important to ask if the laws are necessary or helpful. To use an analogy, would you support a South Korean company who lets consumers use Firefox for online shopping, instead of the state-mandated IE ActiveX control?

If a country is a free, sovereign country, and not a dictatorship, then companies should respects its laws. Period.

[the_ancient]

Well the USA is not a free nation, in fact the various governments of United States are oppressive, so while not a "dictatorship" it is totalitarian so I guess I do not need to respect the laws...

And before you start naming other nations, no the US is not the "most" oppressive in the world, but just because they are less oppressive than say north Korea, that does not change the fact that US citizens do not enjoy the level of freedom they should in order for me to call it a free nation.

[AnimalMuppet]

If by your standards the US is "not a free nation", "oppressive", and "totalitarian", then I'd like to see what nations you describe as "free", "not oppressive", and "not totalitarian". Even more, I'd like you to define how you draw the line between them.

And if every nation is defined by you as totalitarian, then I think the problem is your definition.

The US is not perfect. It is less free than I would like. But there's a huge difference between the US and totalitarianism. If you've ever lived under a totalitarian regime, you'd know the difference, and you'd know which side of the line the US is on.

[the_ancient]

You believe a nation that locks millions of non-violent persons in a cage for possessing unapproved plant material, a nation that has soo many laws and regulations that many studies believe that every citizen commits between 1 and 3 crimes every single day. A nation that spy's on every citizen, a nation that has declared a zone 100 mile from every boarder to be a "constitution free zone". A nation where the police forces can execute the homeless, and blow up bombs in the face of infants with no criminal charges being filed against the officers.. A nation that can simply take any property they want from you at any time with no requirement they prove you committed a crime....

You believe a nation like that can be called "free"

At it core the concept of Statism is oppressive. No nation state can be truly free, democracy at its core is the majority oppressing the minority, and many times in reality the minority oppressing the majority.

[AnimalMuppet]

> No nation state can be truly free

You define that no nation state can be truly free, therefore the US is not truly free. Perfectly logical, but there is more going on in terms of freedom than is dreamt of in your philosophy. There is a huge difference between the US and totalitarianism. You define it to not exist. The problem is your definition.

(Note well: This does not mean that the US is perfect, is as free as it should be, or is the best that there currently is.)

[the_ancient]

You are either free or you are not.

There is not "more free" or "less free"

Freedom is a binary state

Edit

to be more clear what you are talking about is more accurately stated is "more oppressed" and "less oppressed".

Oppression can have varying degrees, freedom can not.

[s73v3r]

"Well the USA is not a free nation"

Nope. Not true.

[HappyTypist]

Like Paris's law banning women from wearing pants?

[thaumasiotes]

Why?

[AnimalMuppet]

Why should a company respect the laws?

Because there are negative consequences to not obeying - financial, jail, or both.

Because, in the case of a non-dictatorship, there is no good moral basis for not obeying.

Because, fuzzy-headed theorists aside, anarchy doesn't really work that well for a country-sized society.

Because respect for the law in society is really to your benefit. And because you're not going to like it if others ignore/disobey the laws that you like - laws against theft of your stuff, say.

Because, in a country with a functioning, responsive government, you've got lawful means to fight bad laws. Use them. (Those means may include civil disobedience as a last resort. But even then, you still have to respect the law to the extent that you recognize the law's right to put you in jail for disobeying a law that you believe to be wrong.)

[coldtea]

>Because, fuzzy-headed theorists aside, anarchy doesn't really work that well for a country-sized society

Has it been tried and found lacking?

[AnimalMuppet]

Tried in the sense of "We, the government, are going to remove all laws and even ourselves, and let society run itself"? No.

Tried in the sense of the government collapsed? Yes. See Somalia for the most recent example, but there are others. And when it has happened, yes, it has been found lacking.

[lukasb]

Who decides which laws companies need to respect?

Hey, I have an idea, how about voters.

[Nadya]

"We have this law that was voted in 40 years ago. I don't really think it applies anymore as we have better methods available to use through technological advances, but casting a vote to remove the law is an expensive, timely process. We should keep following this law."

Plenty of laws go unenforced because they no longer make sense to enforce. Enforcing the letter-of-the-law contrary to popular position is also one way to prohibit progress.

For example, you aren't allowed to remain at a bar in Alaska if you're drunk. I don't drink, but I think enforcing that kind of defeats the purpose of a bar? [0]

[0] http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/folioproxy.asp?url=http:/...

[dllthomas]

Moreover, enforcing that law is likely to increase drunk driving...

[icebraining]

Only Switzerland somehow approximates a system where the voters decided that.

In any case, the State still has the decision - that's exactly what judges like this one are for. One court order and Uber can be shut down the next day.

[sbov]

Is this your gut/bias speaking, or have you done legwork on the rate of various incidences in Uber rides vs taxi rides, and based upon that seen that the regulation is unnecessary?

[icebraining]

The Taxi groups have done a compilation of Uber related incidents[1]; then only got around a dozen for 2015 in the whole world, and that's with padding the numbers by including repeated news.

[1] http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents

[btian]

From my experience, people will shop on the company's website, but will complain how they blatantly ignore local laws on news sites and forums, a la Uber, Airbnb, Tesla.

[s73v3r]

"I think it's important to ask if the laws are necessary or helpful."

I think it would have been important for UBER to ask this, and then lobby to change the law.

I absolutely do not think that is relevant when talking about a company that has decided to disregard the law, simply because it's one you happen to not like.