Congratulations on a text book case of Chesterton's Fence [0]. You've mischaracterized the purpose and nature of the law.

1. we have cars, we have people willing to drive them around to take people places

2. we want some regulation of this new business/service, to make things safer for the riders

3. we want some regulation of this new business/service because otherwise competition will force the price so low that nobody can make a living offering to do this (and we consider the service valuable).

So, we introduce a scheme which says you have pay for a license in order to provide this service. This creates driver identity and "responsibility" which we want for riders. We limit the number of licenses so that we do not have too many drivers chasing too few riders, and thus offering a more reliable income to the drivers, ensuring that the service remains available.

[ time passes ]

Uber introduces a scheme in which there is almost no floor to what drivers might be paid, but manages to tell a story that convinces enough people that they could make a living or at least a significant amount of extra cash by driving without the required license. Uber also assures riders that even though there is no official license, their technology can provide the driver identity/responsibility that it offered.

Result: better ride hailing for riders, money for Uber, and a steady, constant turnover of drivers "just giving it a try because I heard you can do really well ..."

As usual, a mixture of pros and cons, which vary depending on which perspective you are taking and your moral/political philosophy.

I think Uber is probably a net good thing but I also think Uber should be accountable for the laws they broke. Also, Uber, Lyft, Airbnb also did exactly what was expected and increased prices to a ridiculous degree once they became the default standard and went public.

Not OP, but I believe in the rule of law, and in a republic governed by elected officials.

It's not OK for powerful actors, especially companies, billionaires, and government officials, to willingly and knowingly break the law.

This is a bit of projection. But good for you, being open about your support for fraud :-)

That just sounds like "crime" as well. If there's a profit motive, it's not civil disobedience. I think the way Uber was run internally is more than enough evidence that the initially dubious claim of some sort of crusade to right wrongs in society can be completely dismissed.