there is a difference between prices controlled in the interest of the the buyer or the seller.
For example, in many countries, professional lobbies (lawyers, doctors) influence their set price to what they deem "fair" which means it's in their interest as providers.
This is different from the government setting a maximum price on soap and milk, which is in the interest of the buyer but not the seller.
Taxis are special again, as they often exist in a state of government-controlled monopoly (i.e. taxi licenses are restricted).
Prices must be set somehow, and there are many markets where setting them via regulation is a good thing. Taxis are a perfect example: since they're often used by travellers who are unfamiliar with a city, having a clear system determining the price is beneficial.
I think it's important to keep those examples of (mostly) beneficial price controls in mind, since obviously the examples where price controls fail spectacularly are more salient, and hence there may be a misleading bias in how price controls are perceived.