Good.

No, that's a false dichotomy. You can change the law so that mobile phone driven taxis are legal within the system, whilst still leaving the system restricted to badge owners. That's exactly how Uber operate where I am. Perfectly legally, because there is a category of licensed hire cars that doesn't exclude their technology.

Yes, they are a country, and it would be utterly wrong to take away their rights to legislate via TTIP.

On the other hand, civil disobedience is a valid way of protesting bad law.

You believe that mobile phone operated and called computer systems don't exist? Or that there aren't laws in certain countries/cities that ban them? Or that there's no reason not to have outdated taxi systems that don't serve the public as well, or what? What is it you are claiming is bat-shit crazy, and has no reality?

Perhaps you should calm down and think about the topic before you post again.

Oddly enough, it looks like you're the one throwing a tantrum with that post.

What you said sounds stupid, but it's not remotely what I said, nor anything close to the meaning of what I said. AKA a strawman.

Seems to me the answer to this abuse is to make badges non-transferable and apply to the driver. When a driver retires, dies or stops paying his dues, then a new badge becomes available from the licensing authority.

And the best people to operate bus systems are the state.

Because there's no reason in the 21st century that mobile phone operated systems, that work for everyone, shouldn't be allowed.
Not that Uber should get unique treatment for their company, but the laws should change such that such systems are allowed.

It's not a matter of saving the taxi-license cost. Uber absolutely works within the licensing law in countries & cities such as mine who's regulations have provision for the mobile phone based service they offer.

They only operate illegally in places with outdated laws that have not been updated for 21st century technology.

I think the reality is somewhere between the two. It's nuanced. Few things are black and white.

There is a value to regulated taxis. I support them. But where regulation is not being updated to allow new mobile phone app services which are good for passengers, drivers and even other road users, then clearly there is a legislation problem. And civil disobedience is a legitimate way to highlight bad law.

That's simply and easily verifiably not true, in that I am an example of the public, and I value regulated taxis over unregulated ones. For all the reasons you are ignoring - safety, avoidance of being ripped-off, limitation of numbers etc. And there's plenty more like me. I suggest more than agree with you.

Well it kind of does. In that the passenger knows in advance they are looking for a car with an Uber sign, and they have been allocated one in advance by the system. Other drivers might try to steal the fare, but at least the passenger knows better where they stand, and know what to head for if they want the prearranged price.

Not really, because regulated busses with greater capacity and better safety can take their place.

Possibilities:
1) The examples are in different places. They are both possible and actual outcomes of unregulated taxis.
2) The "fares" are different people. A tourist is going to be very desirable and a local commuter very undesirable, as in an unregulated city, the taxis can charge what they can get away with. Which is a hell of a lot more with a rich tourist than a local.