[ThomPete]

You don't have elections about how taxi regulation should be handled. Neither did italian voters vote for the current taxi regulation. So lets stop the sherrade for a moment here shall we?

There are many many areas which are left to politicians to deal with. Not even Switzerland votes on everything.

Italy, Denmark and other countries allow companies to use them as tax loopholes all the time because it creates jobs in their countries and thats one of the most valuable political currencies.

The Uber model destroys that by contracting freelancers instead and subsidizing the rides allowing them to compete with the existing taxi industry with it's existing political powers and lobbied politicians.

There is nothing noble about banning Uber it's purely a political move to ensure a protected industry can continue and thus it's political powers be used and controlled.

[RobertoG]

I'm not sure what your point is.

Only one remark: not banning Uber also would be a political move. We can't escape politics.

[ThomPete]

My point is that Uber wasn't banned because it was illegal but because it was politically problematic. There are plenty of companies who do exactly like Uber tax-wise but doesn't get banned simply because they create jobs.

Furthermore your claim that it's somehow an expression of the italian voter is simply flat out wrong.

[RobertoG]

I think that your point is wrong.

The article says:

"Italy's taxi associations succeeded in winning the ruling after they brought a lawsuit against Uber to court."

It sounds like it was illegal. Why it was illegal? Because the Italian legislative branch decided so. To who the legislative answer? To the Italian voters.

Is this system a democracy? yes. Could be the system be more democratic? Sure.

[ThomPete]

No my point is not wrong. You actually prove my point.

The voter has nothing to do with it they didn't vote for or against it.

The Italian legal system decided on it because it was brought up by someone with political and economic interest. The law is made so that it protects the industry through the licenses and thus political in it's essence.

The point is that any political system who claims it's modern should find a way to make Uber legal and contrary to your claim this wasn't a product of democracy but of a legal system which favorites existing industries.

[RobertoG]

Well, if your point is that Italy is a parliamentary republic and not a direct democracy, then, you are right.

"[..] thus political in it's essence."

The law is always political in its essence. How could be otherwise?

"The point is that any political system who claims it's modern should find a way to make Uber legal"

That it's your opinion that, I dare to say, many Italians don't share.

[ThomPete]

And many do which is why your original claim that it was a slam dunk "uber is obviously in the wrong" is not valid.