[protocolture]

Sure but the responsibility is always to break unjust laws. And in this instance they were able to demonstrate why the laws were unjust and succeeded in getting them changed. There shouldn't be consideration for unjust laws. Its like suing a german car company for not using enough slave labor. "Its the Law" is just a rhetorical was to shut down debate. It should never have been the law, and when it was contested it no longer was.

>If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested.

You shouldnt have been. Thats the point.

>Why are there different rules for large corporations?

The large corporation defeated cabcharge dominance for all of us. They get minor consideration for that.

Uber took us from a situation where a single large corporation had a complete monopoly, to a place where multiple large corporations compete, a place where you technically have the right to compete against them. They flattened the rules, they didn't create a new rule where only they get special consideration.

[aragilar]

Given uber developed software to block the regulator from regulating (see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-19/the-uber-story/109129... and links therein), I'm not sure they can have said to have any moral ground in this.

It's worth noting that the regulator also blocked a majority of Taxi providers from providing a single app (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-12/accc-blocks-launch-of...), I think uber should also be able to be regulated.

[protocolture]

They don't need moral ground just agency to act against the greater evil.