Hacker News Reader

Comment by icebraining | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

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?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com