[mkohlmyr]

Companies don't get to pick and choose which laws they deem worthy of following. If you want the laws changed support an advocacy group. To let them off for blatantly ignoring legislation in a democratic society is setting a dangerous precedent.

[mahyarm]

You could apply the same logic to gay legalization, feminism & female emancipation, weed legalization, India's independence lead by ghandi, the civil rights movement and other forms of civil disobedience leading to legal changes, cultural shifts and even national holidays.

In these examples you have illegal organizations, for profit organizations, non profit organizations and individuals demanding the changes.

[s73v3r]

No, you absolutely cannot.

[rblatz]

It's very easy, civil disobedience is one of the fastest ways to change laws. Especially if you have a large base of support, which uber has. Uber uses civil disobedience very well to achieve its goals and move into new territories. Just because we aren't talking about freedom or human rights doesn't mean that this isn't the same exact behavior.

[mc32]

I think of civil disobedience as a way toward justice where an obvious and protracted injustice has existed.

While I think there are good things about Uber, like breaking the Taxi co monopolies and lowering the barrier to entry for anyone to become a taxi driver, it would be a stretch, a big stretch to comparing how civil disobedience can help to bring change where civil injustice exists and allowing a company to co-opt this mechanism to enable it to enter markets more easily.

[rrss1122]

I think you can apply the same logic to gay legalization and feminism, yes. The logic is stretched too far if you try to apply it to Gandhi or the Civil Rights Movement. Those are completely different situations. A company didn't choose which laws to disobey to enable those movements.

[danieltillett]

Of course they do - these business are just called “too big to fail” and tend to be involved in shuffling money around.