I find this type of assertion with respect to Uber, Lyft, and startups in general uninteresting because it avoids taking a position on the wisdom of the regulat

I find this type of assertion with respect to Uber, Lyft, and startups in general uninteresting because it avoids taking a position on the wisdom of the regulations. I realize that there is room for reasonable people to debate as to whether Uber, for example, has played by the existing rules but that is a categorically different discussion as to the value and wisdom of those rules. So there seems to be four positions: 1) the rules are proper and should be followed (status quo) 2) the rules are proper and should not be followed (self contradictory) 3) the rules are improper and should be followed until changed (rule of law) 4) the rules are improper and should be actively resisted (civil disobedience) Arguing in favor of adhering to the rules without taking a position on the propriety of those rules (failing to choose between 1 and 3) is what I find uninteresting. Pick a side and make your case. Even more confusing and destructive to reasonable discussion is asserting that the rules must be followed as a response to someone arguing that the rules should be changed. That is a category error and adds nothing to the discussion.