Do you believe, then, that Uber breaks these laws as a form of protest, rather than because they want to maximie profit and eating the fines won't hurt their bottom line? What evidence do you have to support that belief, if so?
I think Uber breaks the laws because the people making decisions in uber do not see the laws as useful, and I agree with that opinion. And if the fines for breaking the law aren't hurting their bottom line, it's a win-win - presumably the fines are calculated to more than offset any public harm done.
When you hear a company break an actually meaningful law, the outrage isn't "X is breaking the law!", it's "X is doing <bad thing>". And yes, some of the outrage about uber does take the shape of the latter, and some of it is actually bad. But a lot of criticism is "Uber is breaking <law X> in <country Y>", and you'd only say that if the law in question is actually ridiculous.
You didn't really answer my question, but I think the answer can be inferred: A law Uber finds unuseful is any law that costs them money. Why do you trust Uber with this power? Why would you trust _any_ corporation with this kind of power? They are not and will never be your ally. They are only out for themselves. Laws at least are meant to apply to everyone. You may agree with their individual decisions, or you may be against the individual laws they choose to violate, but the overall idea of "it's OK for them to break the laws I agree are bad" doesn't work when they start breaking ones you _don't_ agree are bad. You cannot and should not give them that kind of trust.
>A law Uber finds unuseful is any law that costs them money. Why do you trust Uber with this power? Why would you trust _any_ corporation with this kind of power? They are not and will never be your ally. They are only out for themselves. Laws at least are meant to apply to everyone.
But all corporations already have that power. There is nothing you can do to stop someone from breaking a law if they think doing it, even after accounting for any negative consequences the society might apply to them, will benefit them.
> the overall idea of "it's OK for them to break the laws I agree are bad" doesn't work when they start breaking ones you _don't_ agree are bad.
Um, sure does? Just because I'm saying "don't punish people for breaking stupid laws" doesn't mean "don't punish people for doing things that are wrong". Especially if doing those wrong things also broke laws!
I am not saying that Uber should be excused in anything they do. I'm saying that if you're complaining about Uber doing X, you should do it by pointing out how X is wrong, not how X is illegal. There are many things that are illegal but aren't wrong (see for example how Americans treat speed limits); there are many things that are wrong but aren't illegal. You should be outraged when someone does something wrong, not when someone does something illegal.
> I think Uber breaks the laws because the people making decisions in uber do not see the laws as useful, and I agree with that opinion.
I don't see speed limits and red lights as useful, because they slow me down. If I were rich and amoral enough, I could drive however I wanted, pay the fines, and simply not care.
Laws are created by a democratic society, and individual members don't get to unilaterally declare that laws are "not useful" while still remaining members of that society.
Why not both? Do you think that ending segregation wasn't also a major opportunity booster for the african american community? Is it impossible for something in your own interest to also be just?
It can be both, but see my reply to the latest comment in the chain. It's unwise to rely on it being both; you cannot write a blank check to a corporate entity to break rules just because you usually agree with the outcomes of breaking those rules.
Yep, that's called civil disobedience. As long as they pay the fines, I don't think it's wrong to break a bad law.