I’ll assume you’re invested in Uber and probably not as a driver.

With this assumption in place we can now move on to why you’re editorial is a flaming straw man argument.

You have positioned the Nevada government as the benchmark for how a commercial entity should perform. Having done so you’ve lowered the bar so far that your arguments are the equivalent of a wad of spaghetti attempting to hold water. To put it more concisely, Nevada doesn’t have to prove anything. They are the lowest common denominator. They are the minimum viable experience that must be met. What Nevada is saying is that Uber has not met that minimum. That’s it. Meet the minimum and Uber can do business. It’s not complicated.

Regardless of the handwaving that Uber likes to do in it’s own defense… government has a responsibility to the citizens to protect their interests. Uber may not like how a particular government executes it’s purview or the laws they are required to uphold but you can’t simply hand-wave those away (no matter if they are the result of corrupt political machines or not).

Uber needs to lobby, petition, speak to the people and otherwise work within the bounds of our existing social pact to get change to happen. Hopefully in doing so they can work with the existing businesses (like Taxi services) and be a positive model for change rather than a chaotic and immature whirlwind of childish tantrums and complaining.