[buran77]

That's the kind of explanation you get from anyone breaking the law and claiming it was because the law not conducive to the greater good. Every regulated sector could get the same characterization from entities failing to meet said regulation making all of it in effect invalid. Uber has deep enough pockets to lobby for changing regulation but that would apply to everyone and they would again have to fight on a level playing field. They broke the law for profit.

Robbery is illegal even if you steal from a criminal, or if people are BEGGING for someone to do it. Sure, when it's a social movement it's still breaking the law but has a different moral value. As it stands the value now is in Uber's pockets.

> The solution to this problem is not "make Uber follow the tax regulations" which seems to be what you are suggesting

No. Not only did I literally start my comment with <I never said (or meant only) "tax loopholes">, I also ended it with:

> > The solution to an industry being crap isn't to allow someone to bypass existing regulation, it's to create a set of effective regulations that can be applied equally to everyone.

I'm trying to assume good faith but replying to me while completely ignoring the content of my comment or twisting my words to imply the exact opposite of what I said is disrespectful and disqualifies your opinion in my eyes at least. Pretty sure also in the letter and spirit of HN's guidelines. Makes it seem like you don't want to be part of a conversation but rather throw your personal ideas out there everything else be damned.

[throwaway201103]

You can sort of make a moral argument for Uber, maybe others in that one of the problems with the legacy taxi services is that they would refuse to provide rides to minorites, blacks in particular. With an artificially constrained supply of taxis, they could do this without penalty, possibly even profitably.

With Uber, sure an individial driver can decline a ride based on the destination and assumptions he makes about the passenger, but it's far more likely that someone will take the ride, since there are many more drivers. They also have less to fear with Uber since they don't carry cash or deal with cash payments, and there's some level of trackability/identifiability of the passenger in comparison to picking up a random person on a street hail.

[syshum]

>>claiming it was because the law not conducive to the greater good

No, I never claim the greater good, that is what people that support government and regulations claim.

We need all these laws, regulations, taxation, etc "for the greater good"

Anyone that claims to be doing something for the greater good chances are is evil.

>>Robbery is illegal even if you steal from a criminal, or if people are BEGGING for someone to do it.

Some how I bet you would not agree in all situation, income taxation as an example...

That said, I do not place much stock in an argument "well that's illegal", as an Individualist libertarian I assess things based on the ethical foundation of liberty or the principle of self ownership..

So I base my support or rejection of a public policy, law, or regulation based on that ethical foundation. I do not outsource my thinking to a legislature.

>>I'm trying to assume good faith but replying to me while completely ignoring the content of my comment or twisting my words to imply the exact opposite

I was not "completely ignoring" your content, it seemed to me then, and continues to be my belief now based on this further comment that you desire increased regulations on Uber to make them fall inline with existing regulations, to "close the loop hole" as it were

This is in stark contrast to my belief that the regulations are the problem and adding regulations to uber is not the solution to the problem

Eliminating regulations on everyone is the solution.