Several of those things aren't even necessarily illegal and are the sort of things they shouldn't have had have any reason to do unless they were being targeted by a media campaign or captured government. There is also some dispute about whether some of those even happened or are just mischaracterizations from the media campaign.
It's like saying "well, they weren't only violating the taxi medallion cartel laws, they were also violating laws against evading enforcement of the taxi medallion cartel laws". There is a central cause here.
Move the goalposts any more and they’re going to be outside the stadium. What laws matter to you? I agree there are shit laws but why can uber break them with impunity but individuals are jailed for smoking some fun lettuce?
The question you should be asking is, what do you want to do about it? Throw the people challenging the taxi cartels in prison, or get rid of the laws against fun lettuce?
Something else, I’m not sure what yet. Honestly, I’m not the best guy to ask but I know that I don’t want startups to continue breaking laws with impunity and I don’t want individuals to get imprisoned for stuff they do that isn’t affecting others in a meaningful way.
There isn't really a something else. You have bad laws that are in practice only enforced against the little guy. You could demand they also be enforced against the big guy, but that's hard to do when they're bad laws, isn't really a great outcome because they're bad laws, and its primary benefit would be in service of calling attention to the flaw so the bad laws can be repealed. And then maybe you should just start there to begin with.
Suppose that the status quo is the worst option, the second worst is enforcing the bad laws against the big guys, the best is getting rid of those laws.
Now, that might not be the case. Given the existence of bad laws, having someone who is able to break out of the bad cage might be better than if no one can, but let's consider what happens if we assume that it's worse.
Regardless of how they're ranked relative to each other, you would only pick either of the two worse options over the best if it was easier to do it. But getting bad laws enforced against well-heeled players is actually the hardest thing to do because they're doing something sympathetic and have the resources to fight, which is harder to do than repealing the bad laws.
I don't agree. Getting more comprehensive enforcement of laws in general against well-heeled players is a good thing. We would have a lot less bad law if laws were enforced more evenly, because people would more quickly see their true effects, rather than having to wait until companies exploited the loopholes in enforcement so egregiously.
(I also don't agree that the only problem here is bad laws. Yes, some of the laws that big players break are bad; some are fine. I'm not just talking about Uber here.)
> Getting more comprehensive enforcement of laws in general against well-heeled players is a good thing.
Whether something is good independent of what it takes to achieve it is a separate question from whether that's where you should focus your efforts.
> We would have a lot less bad law if laws were enforced more evenly, because people would more quickly see their true effects, rather than having to wait until companies exploited the loopholes in enforcement so egregiously.
Which is exactly why it's so hard to do it. The status quo is: Pass lots of laws that make everything illegal so that anyone without resources can be brought up on charges if they ruffle the wrong feathers. If you wanted to actually enforce all of those laws, they would immediately have to be repealed or everyone would be in jail. Which isn't in the interests of the people who want to keep them on the books to use for selective enforcement, so they don't enforce them that way in order to keep them on the books.
The consequence is that it takes even more political capital to have those laws rigorously enforced than to have them repealed, because then you have to fight both the big guys who don't want short-term enforcement against themselves and the autocrats who don't want to long-term have the laws repealed, instead of only the latter.
> I also don't agree that the only problem here is bad laws.
When laws are enforced against the little guys but not the big guys, it's usually because they're bad laws, because letting the rich openly get away with literal murder is highly unpopular.
The most significant category of good laws that big companies regularly violate with impunity is antitrust laws, but those also don't often get enforced against the little guy because the little guy isn't even in a position to violate them.
So I get your argument, but by that logic the only bad laws that get repealed will be those that affect big business, and the laws against individuals without resources will still be in place. I think we all agree that it’s unfair there’s a very large difference in enforcement of law between those with resources and those without, but I think to prevent that we need to figure out how to prevent the capture of the government by those with large resources. I could agree in concept that less laws are better for that overall, but also then there’s the question of who benefits from less laws and I bet those with resources will still benefit.
It’s almost like we need to ensure no one has much more resources than anyone else (ya know, workers owning the means of production) so there’s a more level field!
> So I get your argument, but by that logic the only bad laws that get repealed will be those that affect big business, and the laws against individuals without resources will still be in place.
Quite the opposite.
You have a bad law which is only enforced against the little guy. Right now, when it's not enforced against the big guy, stories are written about it to get people riled up, but that's the wrong target.
Right now, when those laws are enforced against the little guy, people say "well they broke the law". Which is true, because everyone is breaking the law all the time, because there are so many bad laws. So what should be happening is, every time they try to enforce a bad law against the little guy, that should be the thing that gets people ruled up -- even if they're guilty. Because everyone is guilty, because the laws are crazy. So get people worked up about that so that the laws can be changed. Don't accept that people guilty of violating bad laws deserve to be punished. Drag the prosecutors through the mud. Flood the legislators with complaints whenever it happens. Use jury nullification and publicize to everyone that it's their right. Get those laws repealed.
> I think to prevent that we need to figure out how to prevent the capture of the government by those with large resources.
This was supposed to be checks and balances and limited government. As soon as you unchain legislators to micromanage the economy, anyone who captures them can shape the law to their advantage and then become rich and use the money to make sure the government stays captured.
The government needs to be constrained from making laws that inhibit competition.
> It’s almost like we need to ensure no one has much more resources than anyone else (ya know, workers owning the means of production) so there’s a more level field!
The words you're looking for are "antitrust enforcement".
> It’s almost like we need to ensure no one has much more resources than anyone else (ya know, workers owning the means of production) so there’s a more level field!
Heh, yeah, I was going to post to add this as well. That is the underlying problem. I don't necessarily think it has to mean "workers owning the means of production" per se, more like "the richest person's wealth cannot be more than X times the poorest" and "the largest participant in a market cannot have more than Y% market share", but the idea is similar. :-)
Why isn't at least one of those things actually addressing (disbanding, regulating, whatever--left to people experienced in policy or with context to have some remediation plan) those taxi cartels' behavior?
The argument is that getting rid of the bad laws is better than enforcing them more rigorously. This can be applied to the laws propping up the taxi medallion cartels as well as the ones prohibiting personal drug use. Then anyone (not just Uber) could compete with them and thereby disband the taxi cartels previously using those laws to constrain competition.
I agree that removing bad laws is good. I think by introducing the second, culturally charged topic (1.) taxi cartels, 2.) recreational drugs) you diminish the possible interpretations of your perspective.
The other downstream conclusions make sense too, but the linkage is more opaque making it difficult to appreciate.
Also hard to acknowledge is--who decides which laws are "bad"? Generally, societal outcomes should test the efficacy (toward some comparably abstract societal good) of laws, which then prompts the legislature to do something between patting themselves on the back and authoring actually effective law.
It's better to ask the question in a different way. We know what bad laws are. They're laws that benefit some interest group at the expense of the general public, e.g. by constraining competition or diverting tax dollars to cronies.
So the question is, how do you eliminate bad laws? This isn't a question of what a hypothetical legislature should do if it was full of good faith actors, it's a question of how to structurally align the incentives of a real legislature with the interests of the general public so that they're inhibited from passing bad laws.
That makes sense but seems like it would only actually be a subset of bad laws. I mainly mean to highlight that it's not a comprehensive way to identify bad law.
> how to structurally align the incentives of a real legislature with the interests of the general public
This seems like a critical nuance that, like you said, needs a structural solution. I have no actual idea, but conceptually this seems like it would eliminate a subset of particularly bad laws and actions (e.g. members of the legislature trading on their insider information) which have outsized, negative outcomes for the public. But we also rely on that very rule making body to essentially self-govern. And such a grass-roots movement of reforms to put the public first seem unlikely given the attitudes and sensationalizing behaviors present in the members of that body.
I avoid politics because of just how disaffecting it is to think about most of these details.
Because more money and special interests are behind fun lettuce smoking enforcement than local taxi companies could put behind protecting their own cartel from interlopers. If the taxi companies had more money to dump on politicians than is poured into drug enforcement, then the priorities would have changed.
It's like saying "well, they weren't only violating the taxi medallion cartel laws, they were also violating laws against evading enforcement of the taxi medallion cartel laws". There is a central cause here.