I don't think that's derailing it at all. It's at the very core of my ambivalent feelings about companies like Uber and AirBNB. There aren't great social inju

I don't think that's derailing it at all. It's at the very core of my ambivalent feelings about companies like Uber and AirBNB. There aren't great social injustices at work here, overheated rhetoric aside. At worst there's run of the mill corruption. The concepts of what these kinds of regulation do are well-founded and something society has clearly wanted. The exact implementations may well have been corrupted, but the stated intent of the laws and regulations are in the public interest, and the public has been happy-ish with them. Does that then mean the fix is to throw out the whole regimen of rules? For example, someone mentioned Seattle hasn't issued new medallions in decades. So the solution is to do away with medallions? Why not just issue more? What about county level food safety inspectors? Many of those regulatory agencies are also corrupt. And don't even start with alcohol licensing. But should we "disrupt" those too? Just ignore them because there's some corruption in the system? When you get down to it, none of these companies want to increase consumer choice. In their perfect world, they'd be the only choice. So it's hard to accept they're really out for the public good. And that makes it really difficult for me to cheer them on as they pick and choose which laws they accept as valid expressions of the people's will. The people aren't really being given a vote here. Well, actually, they have been given a vote, and these companies are choosing to ignore it for their own benefit. As I said, it's not some great social injustice at stake. Civil Rights leaders broke the law with greater purposes in mind than "So my company can be valued in the billions".