On the contrary, Kalanick is directly appealing to the conscience of the community. Whenever regulators attempt to shut him down he appeals directly to the public: "Bill de Blasio/Shiv Sena/Telangana Taxi Association/etc wants to take away your ride!"
Many in the civil rights movement also broke laws for their own profit or other benefit; they wanted the right to work any job they were qualified for, live in any neighborhood, etc. What's wrong with that?
Does one need to be completely altruistic to oppose injustice? Victims cannot protest, only uninterested third parties?
If you can't see why individuals fighting against systemic racism at great personal risk is an entirely different thing from a billion-dollar company flouting regulations established to protect consumers and employees, then there is little hope that an intellectual argument will make it clear to you.
You are correct that it's not the inspiring of negative emotions that makes your comparison wrong.
I do have an intellectual argument, but you're pretty clearly trolling, so there's no real point in presenting it. You're not stupid and you know what you're doing, so why prolong the pretense?
Is there any possible way I could ask the same intellectual question without you characterizing it as trolling? Or do you simply declare some topics to be, by definition, trolling?
I stand by what I said. I think that the distinction between our celebrated historical civil disobedience and the modern kind is not so clear. One happened 50 years ago and is part of our modern mythology, the other is a contemporary conflict and as such it obviously doesn't come with "applause-lights" [1].
Many in the civil rights movement also broke laws for their own profit or other benefit; they wanted the right to work any job they were qualified for, live in any neighborhood, etc. What's wrong with that?
Does one need to be completely altruistic to oppose injustice? Victims cannot protest, only uninterested third parties?