> but those rules were probably put in place for a reason.
Assuming that lawmaking systems are altruistic and incapable of folly. In practice that doesn't work
Assuming that lawmaking systems are altruistic and incapable of folly. In practice that doesn't work
I want you to adhere to this principle only up to an admittedly subjective bar (e.g. circumventing a tyranical regime). But a lot of the "mischief" being described here is probably well within the threshold.
As opposed to assuming all those that will individually assess and decide what rules are worth following won't diverge in "interesting" (read as dangerous and life-threatening) ways occasionally as the inexperienced, the unethical, or the just plain stupid make choices we would all rather as a society they not.
Again, all rules involve trade-offs. It may be that those trade-offs or preferentially unfairly benefit some special interest group or otherwise aren't worth the cost to society, but it's not up to profit-seeking hucksters to unilaterally make that determination.
(obviously, I'm not saying that no one should ever break an unjust law, but I don't believe for a second that we should allow profit-motivated companies to be good judges of what are just and unjust laws)
This isn't even a No True Scotsman, it's literally contradictory.
You first implied that there are plenty of rules that are completely pointless - mitigating no negative externalities. I challenged you to provide an example of a start-up whose business was based on breaking those kinds of rules - since usually the reason you can make money off rule-breaking in the first place is because you're externalizing the costs onto the rest of society.
I then said that rule-making is a trade-off, and that you don't get to unilaterally decide those trade-offs are illegitimate because you want to make money. In the case of medical marijuana, yes, obviously, there are negative social consequences to selling marijuana and there are people who would vigorously argue in favor of federal drug laws. But these clinics are not unilaterally operating in defiance of federal drug laws; they have the backing of the government of their states.
Of course, there are also plenty of profiteers who just break the law and then reinvest the profits in the task of forcing communities to accept their social irresponsibility and lawlessness as a fait accompli (AirBNB, Uber).
If you really want to think seriously about these issues, you need to move beyond just name-dropping 'logical fallacies' to try and win arguments.
I do want to think seriously about these issues, and I think that's exactly what my challenge accomplished.
As a further question: why is a startup imposing externalities on its surrounding communities (like those two) necessarily in the wrong, whereas a state can do the same (legalizing marijuana has effects on neighboring states) without moral qualms?
Is the problem really the law breaking, or that you just dislike the motives for doing so?
If it is, I apologize. I've re-read your first post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16928822) a number of times and sincerely cannot find it.
you're apparently now seriously arguing that there is no difference between handful of guys in a start-up making a decision to ignore regulations for profit and a policy decision made by a body of democratically elected representatives
I think there's a difference inside the territory controlled by that democratic body, but not outside. If a democratic country decides to dump pollutants on a river that goes to their neighboring country, is that action less wrong than if a company decided to do so? In my view, not really.
Honestly, I think this contradiction is a bad example to show a "rule that can be broken with no negative effect" and more a hint that you guys have some bigger problems that should be addressed.
But if you do take it as an example, I think it comes down to who decides a rule is "non-essential". In the marijuana case, it was itself decided by an established and elected body (the state administration) yet in the OP's case, it was the the rule-breakers themselves who decided that rule is OK to be broken.
Regarding the who decides, I agree that makes a difference inside the state itself. But what about its effects on the neighboring states, which had no say on the matter? To reuse my example in the other post, if a democratic country decides to dump pollutants on a river that goes to their neighboring country, is that action less wrong than if a company decided to do so?
And further, what if that company is a coop with a democratic decision model?
You crossed into personal incivility here and again later. Would you please not do that, regardless of how wrong someone else is?
Long tit-for-tat back-and-forths are tedious anyhow, and it's better to abstain from them on HN, though I know how hard that can be.