Even then. There is value in uniform rule of law.

> 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.

> My state (CA) is doing well this

Yup. And I invest there. I’m pulling back from New York, which is a shame, because I love it and still have interests there.

> Having companies ignore the law is not an alternative to the democratic process

Straw man. Nobody said this. The point is the current system of incumbent worship is not working. If it takes flipping parties to prove that, I guess yeah, but that won’t result in more rule of law.

> 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.

> States won't adapt to new technologies at the same time, this is embedded in the design of federalism

…how are you missing this.

I’m saying the states failing to adapt need to do so or have their governments replaced. That all of these states are also facing multi-party insurgencies doesn’t strike me as a coïncidence. Pretending the corruption in e.g. New York around this is fine is just such a weird take.

>…how are you missing this.

Yeah, you added that in a later comment because your original comment did read as "ignore stupid laws."

Yes, I agree state governments should be responsive to the citizens. Corruption is bad. Ignoring "stupid" laws also goes hand in hand with corruption, and is antithetical to responsive government.

> multi-party insurgencies

This is interesting in that we kind of expect a healthy representative government to have vigorous competition among multiple groups. I'm not sure this is bad...

But a key point of federalism is that each state will adapt in different ways due to having different priorities. Mississippi adapts to the realities of 2026 in very different ways than California. I suspect the same will be true in 2056 and 2096.

The desire to slow down and consider the fate of cab drivers (very hard working, low income people) is not automatically corruption.