Sure, but that doesn't mean your argument won't be perceived as such. The knee jerk reaction is to think "yeah but those laws are obsolete", and identify with the direct connection between driver and rider (as the "sharing economy" whitewash encourages).
I for one don't mind the obsoleting of taxi regulation by direct summoning (which itself solves most of what taxi regulation was a response to), but I also don't perceive Uber as looking to eliminate regulation - they are hoping to become the new middleman by owning the market, buying "appropriate" public regulation to create a barrier to entry, and then enjoying the security of a public organization with the accountability of a private one. Actual P2P empowerment would consist of a bona fide application that directly interacted with driver app, with appropriate reputation system etc. But of course there's inherently no "scalable" profits (aka rent) to be made off of that, so investors aren't lining up.
I for one don't mind the obsoleting of taxi regulation by direct summoning (which itself solves most of what taxi regulation was a response to), but I also don't perceive Uber as looking to eliminate regulation - they are hoping to become the new middleman by owning the market, buying "appropriate" public regulation to create a barrier to entry, and then enjoying the security of a public organization with the accountability of a private one. Actual P2P empowerment would consist of a bona fide application that directly interacted with driver app, with appropriate reputation system etc. But of course there's inherently no "scalable" profits (aka rent) to be made off of that, so investors aren't lining up.