> In this case I figure some special interests are being hurt and some particular individuals use their political influence to serve their ends. That does not s

> In this case I figure some special interests are being hurt and some particular individuals use their political influence to serve their ends. That does not say anything pro/con the government as an institution, it says something about the particular individuals involved. Exactly! With the exception that, yes, it does say a lot about government as an institution. A government mature enough to understand that it should not meddle with the competitive forces in markets should take a position of non-interference. It should have the balls to tell even those with political influence --as you termed it-- to go pound sand. Ultimately, the decision to go after Uber. The decision to attempt to CHANGE LAWS in order to restrict or destroy their business model rests upon one or a group of government actors. Without their agreement to interfere with Uber's business in favor of the taxi industry none of this would be happening. It is government. It is not people who "use their political influence". Government becomes the gating element that enables discriminatory action against interests of an industry that evidence seems to show is in dire need of disruption. I don't buy my children ice cream every time they ask for it. No matter how much they kick, scream or cry for it. It's about being the adult in the room. I'll tell you why government agents help the taxi industry rather than Uber. In their political accounting they have no votes to gain by favoring Uber and a lot to loose by letting Uber function freely. Uber has no political value in terms of votes and other political contributions. That's the America we live in today.