For me personally, Uber's expansion has convinced me the regulation around ridesharing does not need to go beyond wha t Uber already does. I can give zero shits that some public bureaucratic can't flex its authority.
If a country is a free, sovereign country, and not a dictatorship, then companies should respects its laws. Period.
And before you start naming other nations, no the US is not the "most" oppressive in the world, but just because they are less oppressive than say north Korea, that does not change the fact that US citizens do not enjoy the level of freedom they should in order for me to call it a free nation.
And if every nation is defined by you as totalitarian, then I think the problem is your definition.
The US is not perfect. It is less free than I would like. But there's a huge difference between the US and totalitarianism. If you've ever lived under a totalitarian regime, you'd know the difference, and you'd know which side of the line the US is on.
You believe a nation like that can be called "free"
At it core the concept of Statism is oppressive. No nation state can be truly free, democracy at its core is the majority oppressing the minority, and many times in reality the minority oppressing the majority.
You define that no nation state can be truly free, therefore the US is not truly free. Perfectly logical, but there is more going on in terms of freedom than is dreamt of in your philosophy. There is a huge difference between the US and totalitarianism. You define it to not exist. The problem is your definition.
(Note well: This does not mean that the US is perfect, is as free as it should be, or is the best that there currently is.)
There is not "more free" or "less free"
Freedom is a binary state
Edit
to be more clear what you are talking about is more accurately stated is "more oppressed" and "less oppressed".
Oppression can have varying degrees, freedom can not.
No, it's a continium. Should you be free to have other people as slaves, hurt your children, kill people, burn a forest etc?
If not, then you already drew some limits to freedom.
Yet, I'd venture that a person who "lacks the freedom" to own slaves is still perfectly free.
Never in the history of manking was the concept of freedom understood as this "total binary freedom" you mention. Even tribesmen and such had and respected limits while still considering themselves free folk.
At this point, I think we're in an infinite loop. AnimalMuppet out...
Nope. Not true.
Because there are negative consequences to not obeying - financial, jail, or both.
Because, in the case of a non-dictatorship, there is no good moral basis for not obeying.
Because, fuzzy-headed theorists aside, anarchy doesn't really work that well for a country-sized society.
Because respect for the law in society is really to your benefit. And because you're not going to like it if others ignore/disobey the laws that you like - laws against theft of your stuff, say.
Because, in a country with a functioning, responsive government, you've got lawful means to fight bad laws. Use them. (Those means may include civil disobedience as a last resort. But even then, you still have to respect the law to the extent that you recognize the law's right to put you in jail for disobeying a law that you believe to be wrong.)
Has it been tried and found lacking?
Tried in the sense of the government collapsed? Yes. See Somalia for the most recent example, but there are others. And when it has happened, yes, it has been found lacking.
Hey, I have an idea, how about voters.
Plenty of laws go unenforced because they no longer make sense to enforce. Enforcing the letter-of-the-law contrary to popular position is also one way to prohibit progress.
For example, you aren't allowed to remain at a bar in Alaska if you're drunk. I don't drink, but I think enforcing that kind of defeats the purpose of a bar? [0]
[0] http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/folioproxy.asp?url=http:/...
In any case, the State still has the decision - that's exactly what judges like this one are for. One court order and Uber can be shut down the next day.
I think it would have been important for UBER to ask this, and then lobby to change the law.
I absolutely do not think that is relevant when talking about a company that has decided to disregard the law, simply because it's one you happen to not like.