Reductio ad absurdum is NOT a logical fallacy. It only makes clear the problems inherent in a person's position by taking the position to the extreme and examining the consequences, showing that their position creates a similar but lesser consequence.

You don't understand politics. You see, politicians are largely bullies, and all bullies are cowards. They fear losing their position. Show them anger, or even figuratively bloody their nose, and they will usually change their policies. As such, there is a spectrum between b and c, which includes things like nonviolent protests (including where such protests are illegal a la Ghandi), and active defiance of the law, which worked in Austin to make it de facto legal to smoke marijuana in public (the police have been instructed not to enforce that law due to popular demand and popular defiance of the law).

"please enlighten me how requiring to pass a test that you fit to transport others"

What is a person going to do as an Uber driver that would hurt others that he couldn't do just driving himself or his friends around? If there is a danger posed by an Uber driver, then the same danger is posed by regular drivers, and EVERYONE should be subjected to the same tests. Don't punish people for carrying out commerce. That is oppressive and hurts the people.

"requiring more frequent car inspections (since the cars are also used much more intensely)"

The cars are also owned by the drivers, who will notice when something is wrong, and get it addressed quickly, since they have to pay for it and don't want damage to compound. If the car is unsafe, the passenger will notice, give a bad rating, and complain to Uber, who will quickly deactivate the driver contengent on getting his car fixed. This is called market regulation, and it is 1000x as effective as corrupt government regulation. All you have to do is find a corrupt inspector and slip him five extra bucks and your car will pass ANY inspection.

"or an insurance that covers potential damage you your customers is oppressive and illegitimate?"

Uber already provides that, though there is a meme going around that they don't. It says they do right on their webpage. $1 million in commercial insurance, just like a regular cab.

"Good luck in your anarchy, which will end up in despotism after a while."

Freedom is like food for the people. Oppression is like starvation. You have to eat every now and then to live. Complaining about having to eat because you will just get hungry again later is not a legitimate complaint.

So might makes right? I think not, when that might is derived from the power of the people, but their voices are ignored.

People shouldn't be complaining about how Uber is violating the law, they should be complaining about how the law hurts the people!

If you were a citizen of Nazi Germany, I suppose you would think that the laws for internment of undesireables was a good thing as well? How about in the good old USA? If not, please tell us what you would have done. One solution that you must apply in both cases.

Funny how after all that talk about how the regulations are corrupted and illegitimate, you turn around and call Uber a scam. How about a third option: The people like Uber so much that any attempts to close it result in complaints and politicians getting thrown out of office as young people start to enter the voting population.

As an example, in Austin, Texas, it is illegal to possess marijuana for personal consumption. Yet everyone smokes it out in the streets, and the cops just walk on by. They have been told to ignore it, and allow the "law violation" to proceed. Why is this? Popular outcry. The politicians see the writing on the wall, and while it is hard, politically, to change the law, it is easy to call up the police commissioner and tell him to adopt a new "lax enforcement" policy. Of course, with respect to taxi companies, this results in uneven application of the law. Perhaps now they will lobby to drop all the ridiculous regulations their grandfathers called for.

"The relevant laws where established a long long time ago."

And who do you think wrote those laws?

Uber is wise to open immediately, since the people using it absolutely love it, and will complain if the government tries to get rid of them. The solution is to get rid of the longstanding laws that were born of corruption. They only serve the people who hired the now long dead lobbyists that paid off a few long dead politicians to sign unconstitutional legislation in smoke filled back rooms far from the public eye.

Aztecs legally sacrificed children to their gods. Should their parents have worked to change the laws to divest legal authority from the priest class while allowing their children to be slaughtered? Would a (non-violent) rebellion have been justified?

Breaking oppressive and illegitimate laws is good for the people and humanity.

Governments, especially the likes of the Chinese government, absolutely do NOT have the monopoly on moral authority.

And yes, it has everything to do with "Long-term, established transportation companies with powerful lobbying arms". They are the ones who LITERALLY WROTE the legislation in question, and they did it to stop competition. This is not legitimate, and the politicians who took up this cause should be tried for corruption. In China, they hang corrupt officials. Maybe they do have a little bit of moral authority there. Just not a monopoly.

"1 Gbps Internet speed"

You have my attention.

"22 bucks a month"

And now you have my interest. What region are you in and what is the name of the company?

I've been mooching off my neighbor's unsecured wifi for years!

Humans were designed over a long, intense period of selection to be able to perform deep, self-referential thinking, ie to be able to know that the other guy knows that they are bluffing/lying/have some particular knowledge, and make plans accordingly. It is probably the single task that humans are best at. I'm not saying that having a machine beat humans at poker will mean the Singularity has arrived, but when they go one step farther and start beating us at politics (which requires the same skillset as poker but with more complexity, plus the ability to integrate other types of knowledge), then it's all over.

I must say that I am looking forward to it. Humans are much better at beating others in the race to gain power than they are at actually ruling and making decisions for other people.

Distinctions are worthless without differences. These people all play golf together, drink together, fuck each other's wives, and share saunas. It's incestuous, and we are seeing the result of political inbreeding today. The only way to fix it is to vote third party, regardless of any change that the Republocrats make. But again, 95% can't see through it, and those same 95% claim that the other 5% don't understand politics.

Wireless internet can be set up pretty much anywhere in less than a month, so long as the local government doesn't threaten them with theft and violence.

If they do something like that, it makes the news, and it turns into a PR disaster, and they reverse themselves very quickly.

And even then, it's all voluntary.

Honestly, which would you prefer? A system where non-compliance gets you put in a box or murdered (and they can kill your dog for no reason and get away with it), or one where non-compliance means you can't get a loan and maybe get a judgement against you?