The problem in your logic is that different industries have different regulation, like food industry has different rules then electronics, this regulation were created probably after bad things happen. As a user of Uber or classic taxi you should have same protections. Try imagine Uber for food, you put in an app what food you want to eat and some random person will bring you the food he cocked, the person is not qualified, the startup did not made enough background checks, maybe he cokes in a place with rats, if you get sick you can 1 star the person. My point is that analogies do not work that well when you change industry, P.S. I did not downvoted you

I would totally buy the food from the random person if it was cheap, convenient and had good user ratings.

People who can afford to only buy things with background checks and quality control and insurance should be free to buy those things, but it's a little mean to decide for everyone else. Some people can only afford the shitty version.

A random person cannot sell food to random person.

uber eats and deliveroo are only working with restaurants, they couldn't do otherwise.

Yes they can. It happens all the time, just not through a company. Probably not in Europe, though.

I am making a normative argument. I am aware that regulations prevent that sort of thing for good reasons. I say that there are also good reasons for not regulating. In everything there is a tradeoff.

Yeah, but the society calculated and decided that it is worth some extra cost to have clean food places and personnel then have to pay with lives or medical care. As a society we decided that this rules are better globally, even if some individuals would risk eating expired food because is cheaper.

Society rarely gets its calculator out. Rule making tends to be a political process. Oftentimes, the rules are suboptimal. The “calculation” is just a convenient rationalization.

I assume even if I get an exact measuring function for cost vs benefits you will find a minority that will ask to use a different measurement function.

If the society provides free medical care then I guess that is fair.

Yes, I am not from US so yes for US in Europe is fair to have this kind of rules and taxes on things that are bad for health like cigarettes and alcohol

I'm from the third world, where these sort of rules would just remove poor people's access to cheap stuff for no benefit.

I think even in US and Europe there is a significant minority of poor people for whom these sorts of rules are a net negative.

You think that allowing poor people to buy and eat expired and spoiled food is a good idea? You would get an epidemic and pay at least 10 times more and one person eating bad stuff could infect an entire village, so I disagree we should allow selling bad food, the companies would find ways to sell rotten flesh if it was legal and they would make some cool commercials and packaging for it.

The very fact that a company makes a cool commercial is a signal that they are willing to invest a lot of money to make their brand known. From there, people can infer that they won't just make their customers sick, change their name and location to escape the bad reputation, and do the same thing again somewhere else.

Poor people sell food to each other all the time without formal credentials, certifications, inspections and so on. Since they sell to each other, locally, to people who know them, they will only make each other sick on accident. And if someone has lots of accidents people will switch to a better cook. The amount of food poisoning will increase, but not to epidemic levels.

Sure, until you get sick.