"Uber got a start by flaunting a law"
"You probably flaunt the speed limit"
Probably not what you intended to say.
More substantially, I think the licensing regulations for taxis (that's what you have in mind, no?) are far from obviously of "little actual use". This would vary greatly by region; I understand that London and Tokyo, for example, require taxi drivers to prove familiarity with their city's layout before being allowed to take passengers. Maybe this is to enforce a monopoly, or maybe it's for the benefit of the public. It's at least debatable.
Oh, I agree. But I would consider a business moving into an area and gaining a competitive advantage by violating local laws that constrain their competitors to be some kind of breach of the social contract, and just not cricket. If that's in fact what Uber has done - I'm not really conversant with all the details. I don't think I have an inordinate respect for the law, but I also don't think that "but the law is stupid" is a convincing defense here.
The "social contract" theory is pretty hard to defend. Lots of people have tried, few have succeeded.
I'm just about to finish up _The Problem of Political Authority_ [0] and the author (Prof at Colorado University - Boulder) gives the social contract an _excellent_ rundown.
TL;DR: There is no social contract. It's a politically useful idea not rooted in moral law.
Probably not what you intended to say.
More substantially, I think the licensing regulations for taxis (that's what you have in mind, no?) are far from obviously of "little actual use". This would vary greatly by region; I understand that London and Tokyo, for example, require taxi drivers to prove familiarity with their city's layout before being allowed to take passengers. Maybe this is to enforce a monopoly, or maybe it's for the benefit of the public. It's at least debatable.