Obviously that's a dramatic example, but so is the drug dealer example.
If Uber believes that the taxi industry is wrongfully colluding with the government to try to stop Uber from operating, then it's not necessarily wrong for Uber to do whatever it can to continue operating.
That is obviously not true for the extreme example you cited of genocide under fascism, so, I don't think it makes sense to compare the two.
Uber didn't have to have Greyball in the first place. Every driver that got intimidated/assaulted should go to the police. Every time a competitor pulled some shenanigans against Uber, they should sue. And so on and so forth.
This is just smokescreen. It's obvious what the intent was.
Uber can go through the proper legal channels to address the concerns it has.
Let me give you an example here. I think Uber is a bad thing, but there's nothing I can do to oppose them, legally, that is. Should I carry out my own justice, illegally ? You can see that this pattern of thought quickly falls down, because making compromises is actually an important part of living in society.
Once you say "we're not going to follow the law", do you have the moral right to demand it be enforced on other people?
Tax avoidance and laundering of criminal money is a genuine value-add to many an individual's portfolio I don't know why governments around the world want to prevent banks from doing it.
Arthur Andersen did nothing wrong.
Life imitates art.