could, not would. There are many variables. My comments are not intended as official or objective:)
587 karma · joined April 8, 2017
I hear you on being a contrarian, but only when there's a compelling argument. Here, I doubt we do agree on Uber--I don't think there are overall benefits.
As I've said, I am not convinced Uber is some huge innovation but it wouldn't matter if it was (aka Google was the 11th search engine), and regardless, democracy and the rule of law are more important.
At any rate, my version of this being fun is being understood. Alas, some fun is incompatible with other fun.
I did not say that civil disobedience has no legal significance for humans--I said it has no legal significance for corporations. Nor did I say it was a source of sympathy--I said it could mitigate liability or punishment.
While it is not a defense for law-breaking by humans, asserting civil disobedience can mitigate punishment or liability for humans; it cannot be used to do the same for corporations.
Jurisdictions, laws and rules make it difficult to generalize (eg some courts accept some mitigating factors but not others), but I've never come across or heard of any case where a corporation could or did claim "civil disobedience" as a mitigating factor for liability or punishment.
Regardless, SCOTUS did not, as you claim, "express concern about expanding motive in RICO cases".
On a very different court, RBG wrote a concurrence, explaining that she voted against Planned Parenthood because she was concerned with the precedent of charging Operation Rescue with extortion, under RICO. Motive is not the issue (nor was it relevant in that case)--RICO...& charging the defendants with extortion, as a basis for RICO prosecution is.
Like many others, I am critical of and will not financially support Uber's unethical & criminal corporate behavior. If this is what you consider "jump(ing) on the bandwagon" and "drag(ging) us back into the darkness,"--and Uber's behavior doesn't trouble you, so be it.
Thankfully we have choices, so, even if the feds seize Uber tonight, exactly the same drivers with exactly the same cars are already and would still be available on Lyft & the taxi co's apps. And only time'll tell whether Uber matters.
Regardless, whether its Ross, Travis or anyone else, why would or should ideological motivation be relevant to whether or not any given act is legal or how it should be punished?
When libertarians, for whatever reason, choose to start businesses in CA, they are explicitly consenting to our government & to obeying our democratically enacted laws. Ideology is not a shield for consequences--and, for both Travis & Ross, using Ayn Rand to justify their behavior only makes them less sympathetic to judges, prosecutors & juries.
Basically, in 2003, a very different SCOTUS said sorry Planned Parenthood, but, actually Operation Rescue, as awful & harassing as they are, are not committing EXTORTION, so no RICO for you & overturned their damages award.
Here's the part of the article I'd guess you are referring to:
"The decision, Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, No. 01-1118, did not appear to reflect any particular attitude on the court toward abortion, but rather a concern over the implications of invoking the federal racketeering law as a weapon against political protests. In a concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court was ''rightly reluctant, as I see it, to extend RICO's domain further.'' She noted that in the argument in the case, Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, who supported the clinics in their interpretation of extortion, acknowledged that the definition might have applied to the sit-ins of the civil rights movement."
Ginsburg's concern was, if SCOTUS accepted that definition of extortion, others could use RICO to prosecute citizens for civil disobedience. Conseqently, she ruled against Planned Parenthood.
1) People love to say corporations are people too (thanks SCOTUS), but the law doesn't actually always consider corporations as legal people. It depends on lots of things.
2) "The law" is also too vague. Sometimes intent is relevant, sometimes its not; it just depends on what the law itself says.
3) Civil disobedience is not (as far as I know-there's a lot of laws) a defense for law-breaking, but, it may mitigate punishment or liability for a human. This depends on many things, ranging from the law, to the jurisdiction, to the facts of the case.
4) The distinction I was trying to make was: unlike people, companies do not engage in civil disobedience and a court will not allow a company to claim otherwise, be it as defense or as liability mitigation.
Hope that answers your question?
If Uber's big innovation was being able to order a car via an app, its neither that protectable or even all that innovative. Afterall Google was the 11st search engine. Given that each of Uber's rides is significantly subsidized by VCs, it remains unclear if such a service could ever be profitable. And now every competitor, be it Lyft or taxi companies, offers the same service, with exactly the same drivers & exactly the same cars.
Are you suggesting that no matter what Uber & its execs do, folks are supposed to be loyal to Uber because a few years ago it was a hassle to get a taxi?If Uber disappeared, do you really think their competitors would suddenly stop using apps?
Uber
Here's why:
1. Uber is subject to the laws in the jurisdictions in which it operates. Evading authorities is textbook obstruction of justice. Not only did Uber build software that they used to evade authorities & break local laws in multiple states and countries, but they profited from it (which has a variety of other RICO implications.)
2. Sure, corporations are people too, but, nonetheless, only people engage in civil disobedience. Related, for courts, a company that profits from violating of local laws is not a protester or freedom fighter battling injustice, it is criminal enterprise.
3. Charging Uber under RICO would by no means be unusual or a stretch; this is a quite run of the mill application of these laws. (eg see Preet Bharara's RICO prosecutions: https://www.google.com/search?q=preet+bharara+rico+prosectio... )
4. This is unquestionably a federal matter, within the DOJ's jurisdiction. Uber operates across state lines--and used Greyball in multiple jurisdictions. That said, Uber could & likely will face criminal investigation in other jurisdictions.
5. Finally, this is definitely not Trump's revenge on Travis. Not only does it simply not work that way--USAs are independent & it'd be beyond illegal, but this specific USA was appointed by Obama. (There were two Trump didn't fire; USA Stretch is one of them)
(*And, yes, I am a lawyer. And, many years ago, I worked at the Department of Justice)
An amateur does a thing because they love it, while a professional does it because they are paid to do so. Once an amateur is paid, they become professional.
Perhaps this would be more compelling if the author segmented his examples based on whether they were members of the scientific establishment, or of the scientific avant garde instead.
But there is no way Microsoft paid to put any failed product in a film.
If Silk Road did not facilitate the sale of drugs at all, but still enabled the sale of guns, murder for hire, poison, weapons, child porn, would anyone defend it, at all?
And, yes, as it turns out, historically, we've only ever permitted certain kinds of people to be CEOs. They are also not chosen--or removed--democratically. But this is way off-topic.
While I'll agree that Uber used to provide a higher quality experience (nicer cars etc), this is no longer the case. The rating system is also broken-eg it now offers too much power to drunk customers. Uber now operates only to benefit itself-not its customers, not the drivers and certainly not the public. Perhaps you'd prefer to be regulated by the whims of a corporation & their pursuit of profit extraction rather than the democratic legitimacy of government, but thankfully, most of us would not. Hence, even if its taken some time for local & national governments to get up to speed, Uber is being banned, taxed, and forced to abide by the public & workplace safety rules every other company must follow.
Even if most of us think our needs (/convenience) is more important than everyone else, most of us also appreciate the role that doctors & nurses play.
Plus, airlines have rules about literally everything-including wearing leggings. From both a business and a public safety perspective, it would hardly be shocking if an airline mandated that doctors and nurses should be either exempt from removal or the last to be removed. Not sure if you've ever been on a plane where someone has had a serious medical issue when there hasn't been a doctor or nurse on board, but its hardly uncommon. Having a doctor on board decreases risk for an airline--keeping doctors & nurses aboard certainly makes more senses than random choice does or choosing whomever paid the least.
I also have ADD & tried Modafinil as an alternative. My doctor prescribed me 200MG as well, and it gave me splitting headaches and, until I learned to eat first, stomach aches. My doctor suggested I try 50 MGs & 100MGs instead, which didn't give me headaches but, well, just weren't as effective for me. So I went back to the old meds.
Also, Modafinil, IME, isn't like other ADD meds. Unlike, eg, Adderall or Vyvanse, doesn't keep me awake or alert, or replace caffeine. But, obviously this varies, since modafinil is also prescribed for narcolepsy & other people here clearly have a different experience with it.
Basically, chemistry varies for each of us--and there are many variables, including metabolism, medical history, weight, what your diet is, whether & what you've eaten, and so much more. Going to the doctor is not only safer, its more efficient.