Why? All were against the law at one time, and emigration to avoid the impact of the law was possible. (C.f. the Madagascar plan.)
Thus, the preconditions of markoffs argument apply. If the conclusion is outrageous, it's a flaw in his argument.
Thus, the preconditions of markoffs argument apply. If the conclusion is outrageous, it's a flaw in his argument.
Companies are incapable of civil disobedience. As soon as somebody is making money off of it, it's just breaking the law, regardless of whether or not you like said law.
If Uber wants to change the world, they can start lobbying, or start a grassroots movement or something. Just saying "screw you" to the existing regulations isn't ok.
Or if Catholics in Northern Ireland were protesting to stop discrimination against them in employment, same thing? (Springs to mind since I just visited Derry a few days ago.) Due to the involvement of money it's just breaking the law?
Similarly, Isis Brantley fought for 20 years for the right to braid hair. I suppose you oppose her actions too? http://www.cosmopolitan.com/style-beauty/news/a41742/isis-br...
That's a new argument which I don't agree with, but I suppose the implications aren't quite as bad as those of Markoff's argument. You aren't condemning all civil rights activists, just the ones who fight for an equal right to make money.
Or perhaps you are just making a post-hoc rationalization for a less justifiable position.