8 ms·
One is a harmless private activity - the other is a large company gaining an unfair advantage by choosing to ignore the law. Even though they are are both about
by kizza 10y ago
One is a harmless private activity - the other is a large company gaining an unfair advantage by choosing to ignore the law. Even though they are are both about freedom I think it's impossible to compare these.
- fennecfoxen 10y ago> an unfair advantage by choosing to ignore the law It's 100% okay to talk about this, but if we do talk about this, let's also talk about what happens when you get the local politicians to enshrine your particular business model in law and block all your competition from stealing your property - I mean, your customers. Is that a "fair" advantage?
- yummyfajitas 10y agoThe other is also a harmless private activity. No one is harmed when I ride an Uber to my destination. You might claim the taxi driver is harmed by me not using him, but then I might also claim that a woman who might marry the bi fellow is harmed by him being unavailable. Also, if you want to talk about things like safety regulations for taxis/Ubers, keep in mind that gay (specifically MSM, lesbians are safe of course) sex is actually super dangerous: https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/are_gays_or_guns_more_dangerous.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/are_gays_or_guns_mor... So if safety is a valid justification for tyranny of the majority then MSM is near the top of the list of activities to be regulated.
- zyx321 10y agoYou make a convincing argument. We need to strictly regulate gay sex on public roads, and in all other places where it might endanger innocent bystanders. While we're at it, let's tax gay prostitutes who use our tax-funded public bathrooms for commercial purposes.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoI'm confused what public roads have to do with anything. Does this mean you oppose regulation of private acts happening off the public roads? For example, if I want to employ people in a racist manner and pay them $3/hour in the privacy of my own bedroom, that's ok? Or perhaps if the democratic will of the people decides that blacks must use a separate but equal set of public roads, that's also OK? My only point is that appeals to the "democratic will of the people" are a dishonest justification for a policy. People are perfectly happy to ignore it when it leads to policies they dislike.
- zyx321 10y agoNo, you are perfectly happy to ignore the democratic will of the people when it leads to policies you dislike.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoCorrect. I favor ignoring the democratic will of the people and protecting individual rights. I make no pretenses about this, and I think the tendency of democracies to violate individual rights is one of their deep flaws. I'm just pointing out that either a) you favor laws against gay marriage since the democratic will of the people supports them (and similarly segregation in the south in 1969) or b) your appeals to the democratic will of the people are dishonest. Which is it?
- zyx321 10y agoAre we talking about the "gay marriage" kind of gay marriage, or the "exposing people to the single biggest threat to life and limb, without telling them that you don't have insurance" kind of gay marriage? Either way, I guess you caught me. I'm a giant hypocrite. I am of course quite angry at you for exposing my terrible secret. Fortunately for me, you are a supporter of individual rights against all laws and public consensus who will gladly support my right to hit you in the face with a piece of rebar.
- 10y ago
- aianus 10y agoYou have this backwards, the incumbent taxi companies are the ones with the unfair advantage enshrined in law (medallions purchased 20 years ago for 1/10 of the price).