Sometimes it's exactly the best way to fix it. Have something so good and popular the law has to change.
Prohibition didn't end because people missed the taste of alcohol; it was because people kept on drinking (and the illicit nature brought with it the trappings of criminality - corruption, violence, and murder).
Gay marriage bans were hard to "ignore" because it requires cooperation with the government, but anti-sodomy laws were generally ignored until it became comical they were still on the books.
And in general, these kinds of things are the way change happens. The first people at my work switched to git on their own discretion and against the "rules", but it caught on and was productive/popular enough that it's now common practice and no managers ruffle their feathers at the thought.
The phrase is something like - "It's better to ask for forgiveness than for permission". That's because it's easy to say no when asked for permission ("The rules are there for a reason! Tradition!"); if someone has to think about why what you did was wrong, they may come to the conclusion that you were right.
Though the only comparison I think fits the most with Uber is prohibition (since alcohol can be considered as a luxury, while marriage is a legal right). Don't forget though, with prohibition there was a complex underground bootlegging market funding organized crime. Also there's the whole Great Depression thing which put the whole country in need of additional revenue streams...
Oh yeah. None of this is simple black and white. My main assertion is that systems are generally trying to maintain homeostasis. In order to change the system, it's sometimes necessary is disrupt/ignore the system; especially when other means of influencing the system are denied or ineffective.
It is, as paying fines is cheaper than paying for a license.
When you get to that point, it's obvious that the regulation is backwards, and it's nobody but taxi drivers that made it this way: they got licenses for free, then fought for their right to transfer them for money, then they fought to limit new licensing. Basically they lobbied for free money and screwing customers.
Not disagreeing here. However, fines are put in place as a deterrent. In this instance, their purpose is a punishment for breaking a law. Uber is treating them like a tax and the government appears to disagree with that interpretation. If this were a case of a chemical company continuing to improperly dispose of waste, i'm sure at some point you'd want the government to step in over continued violations (i.e., stop them when they are clearly not acting in 'good faith').
You're right, but in both cases each company is doing the same thing, repeatedly breaking a law with no intention of stopping. Wouldn't you agree that the government has a duty to treat both cases equally?
I'm not a public policy expert by any means, nor do i claim to be one, however there's a pretty charted history of how laws can be changed. Examples include protests, lobbying, and ballot measures just to name a few. Don't fool yourself into thinking that Uber is on the moral high ground like some civil rights movement. The are a taxi company that is not following well-established procedure. If they want to continue to operate they should either adapt, or lobby for changing that procedure.
First of all, the OP was making a general point about the best way to go about challenging existing laws. Since the point is general, a counter example suffice, even if it differs from the specifics of the situation being discussed. If those specifics make a difference in the OP's point, the onus of outlining why they make a difference is on the OP. This is how logical reasoning works, but every. single. time. someone points out a counter example to a general statement, there is someone like who who comes and moves the goalpost by saying "oh yeah, because X is like Y", and we're all worse off because of this lack of debating etiquette.
Second, you would be wrong to trivialize the importance of expanding the offering in cabs. Uber will go into neighborhood where Taxis don't, they can also be substantially cheaper depending on the city and the specifics. Having access to a ride late at night can mean the difference between being raped or not raped for many people living in high crime neighborhood. In addition, Uber provides a livelihood for a large number of drivers. The taxis that it compete are generally renting their license from a large company who is collecting the monopoly rent.
>Uber will go into neighborhood where Taxis don't, they can also be substantially cheaper depending on the city and the specifics. Having access to a ride late at night can mean the difference between being raped or not raped for many people living in high crime neighborhood.
This sounds like an American problem. Part of being a licensed taxi driver in Europe is that you can't refuse service in certain parts of town. Same for taxi hours. I have never not gotten a taxi by phone in Vienna.
Prohibition didn't end because people missed the taste of alcohol; it was because people kept on drinking (and the illicit nature brought with it the trappings of criminality - corruption, violence, and murder).
Gay marriage bans were hard to "ignore" because it requires cooperation with the government, but anti-sodomy laws were generally ignored until it became comical they were still on the books.
And in general, these kinds of things are the way change happens. The first people at my work switched to git on their own discretion and against the "rules", but it caught on and was productive/popular enough that it's now common practice and no managers ruffle their feathers at the thought.
The phrase is something like - "It's better to ask for forgiveness than for permission". That's because it's easy to say no when asked for permission ("The rules are there for a reason! Tradition!"); if someone has to think about why what you did was wrong, they may come to the conclusion that you were right.