I (and the GP) believe there's a profound difference in starting a company knowing that you'll be breaking laws (Uber) and running an established company that just had a law passed that negatively impacts your business (Tesla). You're failing to address that besides saying that all law is completely arbitrary.
The distinction of precedence has (or should have) no profound difference to a person's opinion of what constitutes validity or corruption, regardless of a status quo. That is my point.
There is only "profound difference" to the circular reasoning of law itself. There was no reason for me to address that. Legal frameworks are inherently rigid and without much individual conscience.
