Hacker News Reader

Comment by blackbagboys | Hacker News Reader

Rules and regulations require trade-offs. The YC types that run these companies notice the inefficiencies resulting from these trade-offs, recognize the opportunity to profit from them and arrogantly assume they have the right to ignore any rule they can't immediately see the harm in breaking; either because they aren't / wouldn't be affected by the negative externalities the rule is mitigating, so they don't understand why it exists, or, more often than not, because they don't really give a fuck about anything other than making money and being big-time shot-callers.

View on HN

You're still assuming that all rules are mitigating negative externalities. I find your faith in government amazing, and I'm no libertarian.

Can you offer any recent examples of start-ups routinely breaking the law where nearly everyone is in agreement that their law-breaking has no negative social effect?

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.

The first example that occurs to me is startups selling medical marijuana in states which have already legalized it (yet they're still breaking federal law).

They're in conflict with federal law, but they're following a legal and regulatory framework that was established by their local governments, so there's a broad consensus where they are operating that it's OK to break those rules. That's not unilaterally deciding to ignore the law. A better example of a start-up in the marijuana space that did do that might be, say, the Zeta Cartel.

(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)

So you ask me to provide a counter-example to your position, by mentioning a startup which broke the law "where nearly everyone is in agreement that their law-breaking has no negative social effect", yet when I provide one, it doesn't count because "there's a broad consensus where they are operating that it's OK to break those rules"?

This isn't even a No True Scotsman, it's literally contradictory.

No, there are two separate points being argued here.

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 disagree with your portrayal of the conversation. You made an overbroad claim (they're either oblivious or don't care) and I challenged its universal applicability. Your nuanced third position only came out after that.

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?

Given that my 'nuanced position' was included in the same post as my 'overbroad claim', and that 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 it's clear your commitment here is to reddit-style 'logical gotcha' argumentation rather than a good-faith effort at grasping the issue.

Given that my 'nuanced position' was included in the same post as my 'overbroad claim'

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.

As a non-american, I'm baffled that you have contradictory federal and local laws at all. (With no clear precedence rules defined and - since the current administation - both federal and local agencies determined to enforce their respective laws)

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.

I'm not american either :) but there is clear precedence rules - the Supremacy Clause says federal law takes precedence. But that's only a problem is state law directly contradicted federal law, making it impossible to comply with both. Since the states merely give people the choice, people can still comply with federal law by not using marijuana.

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?

> If you really want to think seriously about these issues, you need to move beyond just name-dropping 'logical fallacies'

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.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

No one is allowing companies to be good judges. They are getting judged when caught, they get judged for actions that don't break any laws ex: FB. Lawmaking is a continuous process. Breaking the law in itself is not unethical.

The YC credo is to encourage these companies to think of themselves as judges of what is and is not acceptable lawbreaking. That's the problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com