Except that, with Uber, you are simply trading one incumbent for another.

If Uber were simply an app that connected people and handled payment (for a fee) without exerting any other control, that would fit the parable.

Instead, Uber exerts all kinds of control over the drivers and is simply replacing one incumbent with regulatory capture with another incumbent.

Me too, the question mark in my post is real. Although regulatory capture is a problem, it's rather easy to use that as justification for the idea that any regulation is simply a boondoggle and exists for no other reason than to hinder the economy.

but the actual definition of regulatory capture is that regardless of the reason regulation exists (which usually is a real reason, not an invented one as in the article - the article doesn't have regulation resulting from anything any member of the public actually objected to), the regulating bodies will be captured. So take a real reason: let's say we (the public) want to improve Comcast's level of (notoriously bad) service, even in areas where they happen to be a sole provider. So how do we do this - we can only do it through some regulating body. So, okay, let's improve Comcast's atrocious service. The idea of regulatory capture is even though we have a great reason to do this, Comcast can still capture that body, and be better-off than before the regulator existed - at the expense of the public. Which is why we don't do it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

But the general argument applies to all regulation, yet we still have regulation. And Comcast's business was literally created by regulation: it is a municipal monopoly.

Your argument needs more nuance. Regulatory capture happens when no one in the general public is organized or invested enough to be part of the lobbying pool, or generally due to attrition caused by government corruption.