I hope we get a efficient system that is fair for everybody in each jurisdiction. I would like to see simple and effective insurance laws that don't require special consideration for taxi drivers. I would like to know that I am protected by insurance regardless of what kind of car I get in, whether it's a taxi, and uber, a semi-truck or a friend's car.

I would like a system where the supply of taxi drivers meets the demand at any given time, even if this means prices fluctuate to incentivize an increase in supply. By the same token I would like low demand to incentivize lowering supply. There is no sense in having a bunch of taxi drivers on the street with nothing to do.

I would like a taxi system where the fees are predictable beforehand, and an hailing a taxi can be done easily.

I really don;t care if uber is punished out of existence or not, but I would like another uber-like company to take it's place. I don't think uber is a "nice" company, but I don't think society served well by keeping outdated and inefficient laws that uber is trying to fight.

Maybe uber should be punished. Fine I don't care. What I want to see is the laws and taxi ecosystem change to one that is better than what exists, and I am rooting for uber as an agent of change.

If uber was in the driver seat, it would be the uber CEO in the judge's chair at the trials. I can't say for certain that Uber would turn down that opportunity if it were presented to them (they are a corporation afterall), but I don't think that's what they are trying to do.

If their plan was to specifically avoid being defined as a taxi service by the law, then they absolutely should be defending their actions by saying they are not a taxi service. A jury could determine that they have miscalculated what the definition of a taxi service is, in which case they should be punished. Or a jury could decide that they did in fact specifically avoid the legal definition of a taxi service, and they should not be punished.

Regardless of the outcomes of all these uber trials all over the world answer the questions "Is uber a taxi service?", bigger questions need to be answered, such as "What *should* a taxi service be defined as?" and "Is there a better way to regulate taxi services?". And new laws will probably result from each community answering these questions for themselves.

I don't what if anything Rosa Parks said. But she probably thought that she was not an inferior person deserving of a lesser seat on the bus. I don't think Uber is taking the position that taxi services should be regulated but that they shouldn't be. I think their position is that those regulations shouldn't exist for anybody, including regular taxi services. So in this admittedly ridiculous analogy, uber is like Rosa Parks saying "We (uber and taxi companies) are not "black people", we are humans that should be treated equally with other humans (regular drivers)".

The laws decide what legally constitutes a taxi service, and the courts decide if Uber is in compliance with those local laws in every jurisdiction they operate.

No one has the "right" to break a law by the definitions of rights and laws. What everyone *can* do, is decide to break the law and accept whatever consequences arise from that decision.

You certainly *can* (try to) murder me if you want. I will try to stop you, but there is no law of the universe that prevents you from trying. If you are willing to accept the consequences of your actions, then go right ahead. The government may convict you of murder, or they may find you not guilty depending on what you can convince a jury to believe.

If you can't accept the consequences for your actions, then I suggest you rethink your actions.

I don't think you actually read my post, seeing as you seem to think I am arguing something different than I am. You can be comforted that I will be punished when you achieve the right not to be offended.

Restricting the supply of taxi drivers may drive up the price of taxis, but this doesn't necessarily help taxi drivers. The artificial increase in price also leads to the costs of becoming a taxi driver becoming higher. Often the taxi drivers don't actually own the medallions, but merely pay a large percentage of what they are paid to the entity renting a medallion to them. Or even if the drivers manage to buy a medallion, the market value of the medallion is reflected by their profit potential.

Artificially increasing the cost of providing a service, is not a viable strategy to make providing that service more profitable. All it actually does is disincentivize availability of that service. I don;t think we actually want to disincentivize the supply of taxis. I would argu that what we want is a supply that matches the demand at any given time. And honestly Uber does a great job of matching supply and demand, through supply/demand pricing.

People actually openly participate in jury nullification as a means of protest, both against unjust laws and to challenge the illegality of jury nullification itself. But 1. Jurors are acting as extensions of the legal system (the government) in a trial. and 2. Not all trials have jurors.

The other cab companies represent uncle tom's in this analogy. They are other black people that want to follow the rules and think uber should be punished for breaking them. Uber wants to be treated like other white people (regular drivers that don't need extra insurance, etc).

And we also have civil trials, as well as supreme court cases decided by judges.

It depends on the state. Some states (I believe my own state California is one of them), it is actually illegal to make a decision as a juror that ignores the law. Obviously nobody can really know what your motives are and you can lie about them. But if you openly disobey the judges orders to make decisions based on what the law is (rather than what you think the law should be), you can be held in contempt of court and jailed.

Corporations are pretty stoic. They don't even have faces.

Well then the playing field is already level.

It depends on the type of trial. We have jury trials. We also have trials that are decided by judges. The government is made up of people. When people are acting as jurors, they are acting as an extension of the government, just like police officers and judges are people acting as extensions of the government.

NO they don't have the *right* to disobey the law, as per the definitions of rights and laws. What they *can* do is decide to break the law and deal with whatever consequences arise out of it.

Just like Uber. They let their actions (i.e. law breaking) do the talking.

I suppose that could be true depending on the details. It seems that there are quite a few psychopathic people who really only care about themselves and don't give a shit about what happens to their communities while still realizing the importance of the appearance of contribution as a means to an end.

Also, there are quite a few very wealthy people who have zero interest in contributing anything back to anybody. Maybe for those people their community is other entitled rich people.

I don't presume to know what is in the heart of every human being.