Hacker News Reader

> what's the difference between me using AirBNB and me knowing a friend who let me stayed at his place for 6 days and I just happened to give him some money as a thank you gift?

Its the difference between an informal, non-contracted exchange of gifts between parties known to each other with an established relationship on the one hand, and a contractual, arms-length agreement between strangers through a third-party intermediary with arms-length contractual relationships with both parties on the other.

As a general rule, in most domains, the latter tends to be subject to greater regulation than the former, both because, as an arms-length agreement, there is greater need for protection from abuse and, as a contractual agreement, it necessarily invokes the threat of state action.

> No one is "forcing" you to spend $300/night in Manhattan for a hotel. You should read that book again because you are also not using "Atlas Shrugged" in a meaningful context.

Good luck finding a hotel for cheaper than $200 at least in Manhattan :) And you're right, you're not forced, you're more than welcome to sleep on the public streets.

> Laws and regulations around housing are put in place to protect all residents, the landlord, the community,

To a certain extent this is true, but this does not take away the fact that me selling my house for a few days that I'm gone to someone else should be illegal. You're also assuming that I want to throw out EVERY SINGLE LAW OMGBBQ. Talk about being "extreme." Good gosh Charlie Brown.

> regardless of what Joe the landlord remembered or didn't remember to put into his stock lease.

There's this magical thing called lawyers. They're pretty cool once you get to know them, even the "sharks." Without them, writing contracts would be to hard for my small brain :(

> And what's the difference between cooking for friends who give you money for groceries and opening a restaurant in your apartment? You can always make an argument that appeals to the extreme in making your case, but thankfully that doesn't make it a legally relevant argument.

I'm actually a big advocator of people starting up restaurants in small capacity places (remember, we can be a vegan restaurant with absolutely no use of a stove, only an oven which means a safe, contained, and controlled environment) such as homes and/or "food trucks".

And you were right about the AS comment, good call :) (like I said not an AR fan I was under the presumption that it had to do something with business owners leaving due to all of these rules and leaving the "big guys" to look after everyone).

The only difference that matters between friendly exchanges (cooking and room/board) and AirBnB or underground restaurants is that one set of actions threaten the existing power brokers who have the ear of City Hall. No one blinks when you disrupt file sharing or social networking, but disrupt automotive, taxis, or hotels (for example) and you're in a world of legal hurt. I fully understand that these zoning laws that AirBNB is running afoul of have existed for some time, but, as others pointed out, there are plenty of private, non-coercive ways to solve this same problem. They were codified into law because some powerful incumbent business sought to benefit financially from it.

The other differences between these different transactions, while perfectly valid distinctions, are simply ex post rationalizations made by those who support the entity in power (in this case city hall).

> The only difference that matters between friendly exchanges (cooking and room/board) and AirBnB or underground restaurants is that one set of actions threaten the existing power brokers who have the ear of City Hall.

I think it's a shame that most people are too cynical to understand why laws and regulations around food, housing, transportation, etc. exist. Odd in particular that you think preventing underground restaurants has anything to do with protecting the power brokers when there's a big public health case to be made for ensuring that food is prepared in a sanitary environment. I'm guessing you're in favor of a solution that let's people get sick/die and then let the free market enact it's revenge on the restaurant. Good thing we decided to leave that model out with the 20th century.

More ex post reasoning. And it's not being a cynic that makes me believe this -- it's an honest look at the empirical evidence.

There is really vibrant underground restaurant industry in Seattle. I don't think people are getting sick/dying in massive numbers. Also, I would favor a solution where a restaurant is held legally (and perhaps criminally) liable if they make a diner sick or die. As it stands now, they can hide behind the health code.

I think it's a shame that most people are too cynical to understand that there are solutions to problems that don't require the use of force.