> There is value in uniform rule of law
Sure. OP's point is these products and investments are accruing disproportionately to red cities and states. Sinking together isn't a great pitch.
> There is value in uniform rule of law
Sure. OP's point is these products and investments are accruing disproportionately to red cities and states. Sinking together isn't a great pitch.
I think elected state leaders should move to understand theses issues, hear from experts and the public, and craft good laws for these services.
My state (CA) is doing well this. If your state is not, and this is important to you, I suggest you get involved in the process.
Having companies ignore the law is not an alternative to the democratic process.
> these products and investments are accruing disproportionately to red cities and states
Is this true at the city level?
> Sinking together isn't a great pitch.
Surely it's a worse pitch to suggest that companies can ignore laws they don't like, and operate above the law?
> it's a worse pitch to suggest that companies can ignore laws they don't like, and operate above the law?
It’s also worse to murder kittens. That isn’t the choice at hand.
The difference is between states adapting with a regulatory framework and those sticking with economic incumbents.
(Also, when the taxi medallion industry was at its peak, lenders did run roughshod over the law.)
In context, your comment reads as a defense of companies ignoring laws:
>> that big companies are (sometimes) bound by the same laws that bind the rest of us
> Not if they’re stupid laws!
States won't adapt to new technologies at the same time, this is embedded in the design of federalism.