[Uberphallus]

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.

[therobot24]

> it's obvious that the regulation is backwards

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').

[dylanjermiah]

Improperly disposing waste is not equivalent to providing a better service cheaper and quicker.

[therobot24]

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?