3 ms·
But remember, UBER was playing in an unfair world. A world in which the existing Taxi companies had entrenched monopolies and yearly contracts with airports an
by padiyar83 9y ago
But remember, UBER was playing in an unfair world. A world in which the existing Taxi companies had entrenched monopolies and yearly contracts with airports and city councils. And UBER does provide a valuable service to its users. I hate to go back to the days of having to call a yellow taxi cab to take me to the airport and then wonder if they would show up in time or not.
//corrected a typo
- ckastner 9y agoHow does that justify the alleged obstruction of justice?
- BearGoesChirp 9y agoMorally, it is a question of if the legal system is delivering justice or not. Obstructing the legal system when it fails to provide justice is not obstructing justice in a number of moral or ethical views. Consider a case where the legal system was attempting to enforce property rights involving slavery and an individual obstructed the system. Many would consider this justified obstruction of justice because they are morally opposed to what the legal system is trying to do. (I'm not trying to say what Uber is doing is anything like the example I gave, I was only trying to give an extreme example where many readers would at least see how people would feel it justified the obstruction of justice.) Legally, it doesn't at all.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoPlaying in an unfair world doesn't justify making it significantly more unfair by throwing out the rulebook.
- metaphorm 9y agothe U.S. is a constitutional republic and is governed by the rule of law. if a law is unfair, the constitutional remedy for it is the legislative process, not breaking the law.