[dexen]

> Every step of Uber's success has been associated with some sort of law breaking.

How do we verify law as well-written and protecting interests of constituents first and foremost?

If we assume breaking it was necessary to improve customer experience -- and there are some good indicators for that -- we should ask ourselves, does the law protect the entrenched service provider (here, taxis) more than the consumers?

Should that be the case, it's failure of the law, and perhaps also law making process.

> How can this be OK?

It's a terrible stretch, but still: "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison" - Thoreau, "Civil Disobedience"

[habosa]

The basic idea of what you are saying is correct, but I think there are some important details we are missing.

Look at how Uber is breaking the laws. They are doing it with the financial backing of enormously powerful people. So while now they are just breaking old crusty taxi laws, it scares me to think that a well-funded company could take this model and break some laws that actually protect me. What if what happened to the taxi drivers happens to an industry that I work in? I will have no moral leg to stand on if I don't oppose Uber's tactics now.