No cab company had a nationwide or even statewide monopoly, and yet Uber was still forced to spend vast amounts on legal and lobbying, so I would consider them more of a "point" than a counterpoint.

Yeah, this is a good point. They were able to get enough VC money, for long enough, to actually affect the existing monopoly (taxi industry) in many countries.

That being said, I wonder how much money the founders spent on private security for themselves meanwhile?

Unions (including taxi unions) are known to play funny buggers in the real world against those they perceive as threats.

Adding to what others said, Uber often just ignored the law designed to help local monopolies.

Not sure how repeatable ignoring laws are in battling monopolies.

What? Uber bought their way into the market it's the exact problem that the person you are replying to is trying to address?