> Such laws would be a stunning display of hypocrisy from a party that claims to be against federal interference in markets.
Yeah, what's your point? The Democratic party is not constrained by any of its purported principles when it's going after its political enemies. It's not about principles, it's about inflicting damage on your political enemies so they are afraid to do anything that might further upset you.
There might develop in this country a groundswell of people who have had a bellyful of being bullied and lectured, particularly by self-righteous billionaires. They might decide they want to see Brian Chevsky and Airbnb taken down a peg or two, and they might wake up from their stupor and realize that they have the power to do just that. I'm sure a skilled politician could convince the country of the urgent need for regulating the dangerous, shady, barely above-ground economic activities that Airbnb facilitates.
I'm sure that whoever uses Airbnb clicks through an agreement that absolves them of any liability should anyone get hurt. But perhaps a rich, heartless, greedy corporation should not be allowed to do that. A law could be passed, whereby, for example, if a woman was staying in Airbnb was raped because a former guest duplicated the key and used it to break in and rape her, she could sue Airbnb for negligence. And anyone who dared publicly oppose such a law could be smeared as anti-woman and pro-rape.
> It would also normalize (or continue the trend of normalizing) political punishment for companies that don't agree with the current administration's (non-legal) policies. Regardless of who's in power, that's not a good road to go down.
Dude, we're already down that road. Read up on what Democratic politicians did or tried to do to Chick-Fil-A, to cheers from the left, because its founder was deemed guilty of thoughtcrimes.
It will only end when the left decides they want a truce, and that will only happen when their own tactics are used against them in equal or greater amounts. There needs to be some high profile examples made.
> The Democratic party is not constrained by any of its purported principles when it's going after its political enemies.
Yes, it absolutely is. The reason the DNC is in shambles right now is because it tried to circumvent its principles and got burned in the process. For the next few years, the Democrats will be very mindful of their platform's legitimacy and reconstruction.
> It's not about principles, it's about inflicting damage on your political enemies so they are afraid to do anything that might further upset you.
This is extremely myopic. The goal of the DNC (or GOP, for that matter) is not to inflict damage as a deterrent. Arm-twisting is a part of politics, but actively sabotaging your own party platform for a brief gain is not a component of arm-twisting.
I'm not familiar with how Airbnb deals with liability (or even liability law in general), so I'll refrain from commenting on the majority of your thought experiment here. One thing that does stand out is a theme of "us versus them," where the "them" is "self-righteous billionaires." Neither end of the political spectrum has any want for billionaires, and they're all "self-righteous" in the sense that they put their money towards political action that you don't agree with. If you want to critique billionaires on the left like Chesky, be prepared to explain why he's any different from the Koch brothers (except perhaps in visibility).
> Read up on what Democratic politicians did or tried to do to Chick-Fil-A, to cheers from the left, because its founder was deemed guilty of thoughtcrimes.
I'm familiar with this[1] controversy, if that's what you mean. The closest analogue I can find in that circumstance was local politicians threatening to block construction of new Chick-Fil-As. I think that sort of response is reprehensible, but it's also a far cry from the federal government using its power to punish an individual business. In short: it's bad that they did that, but equivocating their (empty) threats with what you've suggested doesn't hold water.
> If you want to critique billionaires on the left like Chesky, be prepared to explain why he's any different from the Koch brothers (except perhaps in visibility).
Do you still not get it? I don't have to explain anything. I don't have to provide any arguments at all. I don't have to do anything except protect myself and stay within the law. And I don't want to "critique" billionaires on the left who use their money and high profile to push political agendas that are opposed to mine. I want to see them suffer financial consequences so they'll STFU. And I don't feel compelled to observe any principles people like you remind me of, because my opponents are not bound by any principles.
This might just be a tipping point. If Brian Chevsky continues this, I might decide to contact my congressman and senator (both Republican) and express to them how concerned I am about this newfangled website called "Airbnb" that could be running underground, illegal hotels in my nice quiet residential neighborhood (where I'm sure operating a regular hotel would be prohibited by zoning laws), and now, OMG, he's there's a chance he might be putting ISIS fighters disguised as refugees in the house next door to mine!
Yep, I'm getting mighty tired of these self-righteous billionaires.
> I want to see them suffer financial consequences so they'll STFU. And I don't feel compelled to observe any principles people like you remind me of, because my opponents are not bound by any principles.
I'm sorry you feel that way, because that's not the way it is. Principles that you don't like still have principles, and the only person being self-righteous here is you.
Using your political power in bad faith does require explanation, especially when you go on the Internet and encourage others to do the same. If you're not willing to explain or argue for your actions, then you should consider whether you truly can explain them.
> Using your political power in bad faith does require explanation, especially when you go on the Internet and encourage others to do the same. If you're not willing to explain or argue for your actions, then you should consider whether you truly can explain them.
OMG! You are hilarious! You still think that you can dictate rules that I'm "required" to follow! Keep it up! I love it!
I was just thinking about this further, and it occurred to me, that if a few congressman were to simply start making noises about all the shady, gray-area aspects of Airbnb's business model, and how badly they need to be regulated to insure safety, peace and tranquility for all Americans and Especially For The Children, it could make multiple billions of dollars of their valuation evaporate in a puff of smoke.
The investors are probably mostly vehemently anti-Trump, like Brian Chevsky, so maybe they would take it in stride, and stand behind him, for the sake of their Sacred Principles.
Or maybe they wouldn't, it's hard to say.
It would be interesting to see how a scenario like that would play out.
Yeah, what's your point? The Democratic party is not constrained by any of its purported principles when it's going after its political enemies. It's not about principles, it's about inflicting damage on your political enemies so they are afraid to do anything that might further upset you.
There might develop in this country a groundswell of people who have had a bellyful of being bullied and lectured, particularly by self-righteous billionaires. They might decide they want to see Brian Chevsky and Airbnb taken down a peg or two, and they might wake up from their stupor and realize that they have the power to do just that. I'm sure a skilled politician could convince the country of the urgent need for regulating the dangerous, shady, barely above-ground economic activities that Airbnb facilitates.
I'm sure that whoever uses Airbnb clicks through an agreement that absolves them of any liability should anyone get hurt. But perhaps a rich, heartless, greedy corporation should not be allowed to do that. A law could be passed, whereby, for example, if a woman was staying in Airbnb was raped because a former guest duplicated the key and used it to break in and rape her, she could sue Airbnb for negligence. And anyone who dared publicly oppose such a law could be smeared as anti-woman and pro-rape.
> It would also normalize (or continue the trend of normalizing) political punishment for companies that don't agree with the current administration's (non-legal) policies. Regardless of who's in power, that's not a good road to go down.
Dude, we're already down that road. Read up on what Democratic politicians did or tried to do to Chick-Fil-A, to cheers from the left, because its founder was deemed guilty of thoughtcrimes.
It will only end when the left decides they want a truce, and that will only happen when their own tactics are used against them in equal or greater amounts. There needs to be some high profile examples made.