[toomuchtodo]

Uber is not a "gypsy" taxi fleet. They may not be sanctioned, but they're far from unregulated.

Your idea that they have a social obligation is incredulous. Would you prohibit me from ride sharing with someone privately? Of course not! Why does an app and the exchange of money make that different?

[vannevar]

Why does an app and the exchange of money make that different?

They don't. The introduction of a corporate mediator does. The idea that corporations, chartered by the government and relying heavily on public infrastructure to function, should have social obligations is simply common sense. Even individual property owners have always had social obligations with regard to the manner in which they use and maintain their property. Why do you believe corporations do not?

[toomuchtodo]

> Why do you believe corporations do not?

Because if the social obligation isn't codified into law, it doesn't exist. "Morality" does not equal legal obligation.

[vannevar]

The question we're arguing here is whether such an obligation should be codified. You felt it was 'incredulous' to believe that a corporation should have social obligations. I'm wondering why you think such an idea is so outlandish, given that the entire concept of a corporation is to allow people to profit without liability in return for benefitting society.