[wpietri]

You have a very poor understanding of what civil disobedience is.

As MLK wrote, "One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law." [1]

That is manifestly not what Kalanick is doing. He broke laws for his own profit, has energetically avoided the penalties, demonstrates no particular interest in justice, and certainly doesn't care about the conscience of the community.

I also think the "political insiders" thing is just crocodile tears. From his behavior, Kalanick has no problem with industrial interests having outsized power; he just wants to be the one with that power.

[1] https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....

[yummyfajitas]

On the contrary, Kalanick is directly appealing to the conscience of the community. Whenever regulators attempt to shut him down he appeals directly to the public: "Bill de Blasio/Shiv Sena/Telangana Taxi Association/etc wants to take away your ride!"

Many in the civil rights movement also broke laws for their own profit or other benefit; they wanted the right to work any job they were qualified for, live in any neighborhood, etc. What's wrong with that?

Does one need to be completely altruistic to oppose injustice? Victims cannot protest, only uninterested third parties?

[vacri]

That is a pretty gross rephrasing of wpietri's point.

[yummyfajitas]

I understand that my comparison is inspiring negative emotions. But that doesn't make it wrong.

Do you have an intellectual (rather than emotional) argument why my rephrasing is somehow invalid?

[inimino]

If you can't see why individuals fighting against systemic racism at great personal risk is an entirely different thing from a billion-dollar company flouting regulations established to protect consumers and employees, then there is little hope that an intellectual argument will make it clear to you.

[vacri]

You are correct that it's not the inspiring of negative emotions that makes your comparison wrong.

I do have an intellectual argument, but you're pretty clearly trolling, so there's no real point in presenting it. You're not stupid and you know what you're doing, so why prolong the pretense?

[yummyfajitas]

Is there any possible way I could ask the same intellectual question without you characterizing it as trolling? Or do you simply declare some topics to be, by definition, trolling?

I stand by what I said. I think that the distinction between our celebrated historical civil disobedience and the modern kind is not so clear. One happened 50 years ago and is part of our modern mythology, the other is a contemporary conflict and as such it obviously doesn't come with "applause-lights" [1].

[1] "Applause-lights" explained: http://lesswrong.com/lw/jb/applause_lights/

[inimino]

Self-interest is not conscience.

[bogomipz]

Wow you are actually attempting to connect Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights movement, "conscience" and "injustice" with Travis Kalanick and Uber?

That is so messed up.