[parineum]

That's what happens when the majority of people don't actually support the regulations.

If people thought it was wrong to be an unlicensed airbnb or uber, they wouldn't use them. In reality, those regulations are mostly protection rackets and most people don't care about violating them.

[gtowey]

I disagree. When you give people strong economic incentives to ignore morality, some people will. Not all, but enough to make a hash of things. In any population there will be some people who will do things they know are wrong just to get ahead.

For Airbnb landlords I'm sure the thought process goes like " I'm just one person so I can't be having enough of an impact to be a problem. And besides, I need the money." But then enough people pile on and in aggregate they ruin the local housing market. But nobody thinks that they themselves are culpable

[twoodfin]

I’m struggling to understand the moral character of taxi service regulatory capture and monopolization.

[lokar]

People were (and mostly still are) very opposed to Airbnb rentals in their neighborhood.

[aleph_minus_one]

... but the customers of these Airbnb rentals are not. :-)

[parineum]

That's none of their business.

There are already laws in place against the kinds of behavior that neighbors are afraid will happen.

[BostonFern]

That's interpreting a failure to fight to preserve ethics as an internal rejection when it could be explained by a lack of fighting spirit, either because the fight seems impossible or the given hill not worth dying on. Another interpretation would be a comfort-oriented, avoidant, and possibly cynical culture facing a power imbalance.

[ajkjk]

that can't be right. If 90% of people are anti-airbnb and the other 10% are pro-airbnb then the 10% just open all the airbnbs.

[jquery]

This is certainly the most uncharitable way to think about it.

I see a prisoner’s dilemma where people often support regulations even if on an individual basis they would personally violate them, because they prefer living in a the less chaotic society. For example anti-dumping regulations… the expected value for any given individual is +EV, but when everyone is dumping, it’s a big -EV

[jacquesm]

The perfect example is speed limits: everybody thinks they're good and yet they all seem to classify all other drivers into two categories: slowpokes and maniacs.

Nobody seems to be able to agree on what a responsible set of rules is around the speed of vehicles.