[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.