He would call the government and protesters "Sisyphists," since they apparently believe it is better that the consumer has to work harder to get a ride. http://www.econlib.org/library...

The intent of the medallion system is irrelevant. What is relevant is the outcome it has produced. That outcome was evidently so bad at serving the consumer, that a firm can risk legal trouble and still make billions.

I said it's better, not perfect.

Hope you don't plan on lobbying.

Americans seem to have a gigantic blind spot when it comes to government corruption. Sure, people tend to nod at generic whining about "corrupt politicians" but they are hopelessly incapable of spotting that corruption when it happens. They will blame non-government actors all day long for making and offering bribes. As for the politicians who habitually take bribes? Crickets.

It's the laws that are bullshit. Look at what kind of service Uber facilitates. How is it that only now anyone is introducing a reputation system to this industry? How is it that only now the barrier of entry to this industry is coming down? What exactly does a stringently controlled supply of government-licensed "taxi" drivers do for the consumer anyway?

Exactly. No one would think to lobby the government if the government were not so powerful and meddlesome. People work to persuade the bureaucracy because doing so has a huge ROI.

Uber is 1000 times better for transportation than the taxi cartel, and no thanks to government's relationship to this industry, lobbying aggressively is an act of self-defense. Instead of denigrating Uber for playing this game, blame the governments which have made this necessary, and blame yourselves for not voting the bastards out when they create cartels.

The story never ends. Innovators try to create something new and help their fellow human beings, then the state tries to stamp it out. Fortunately, innovators move faster than government. In the long run humanity wins and bureaucracy loses.

You're taking for granted that the FCC's new rules are antynomous with "protecting commercial interests." The ISPs will be fine either way, they already had government-granted monopolies. The rules were added at the behest of companies like Netflix, who felt they needed a regulatory cudgel to strengthen their position in price negotiations. Except what the FCC has also done is drop a lot of uncertainty and fear onto the ISP industry. That alone will stifle expansion. Far better would have been to end the idiotic local laws and regs that made monopolies of whichever broadband provider was first to a given market. Google Fiber only rolled out in places where city governments could be coaxed into liberalizing, and behold, Comcast is upgrading speed in those areas for free. Competition works. The market has not failed. The FCC "fixed" the wrong problem.

Maybe the EULA will be called The Covenant.