In response to your second paragraph, regulatory arbitrage is efficiency seeking. I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "vote with your feet". It's not like people move to a new job out of a state or out of country with the expectations that the laws remain same. In a similar fashion, Uber isn't obligated to base it's behavior on laws or regulations that don't exist. The same could be said of Paypal, Youtube, AirBnB and more recently with cryptocurrencies and NFTs. The way you phrase your sentences seems to suggest you classify pursuing economic freedom as a preemptive regulatory evasion.
This is completely irrelevant. I'm talking about policy-making. I'm talking about the motivations behind making the rules, not how you work within the rules.
> regulatory arbitrage is efficiency seeking
That's right. I think that's what I said.
> economic freedom as a preemptive regulatory evasion
No, but policy-makers are free to take that approach, because they create the rules. If the rules don't cover new behaviour, the motivation - the original political will - behind previous rules often, and in fact usually, creates political will to introduce new rules. That's ok, it's the system working. It's why we have governments on an ongoing basis, and don't just stop once we have one set of laws.
Freelancers doing gig work are a drain on society if they fall back on to social safety nets when not employed. It's not in society's interest to have these people paying taxes only when they feel like it, especially if it ends up cannibalising slightly less efficient industry which reliably keeps people employed and paying taxes.
Not entirely serious - I do have sympathy for the position that gig work puts otherwise idle labour to good use - but I do think Uber and many similar companies are extracting efficiencies that hadn't been locked out with laws only because the tech to extract them hadn't been invented yet, a kind of regulatory arbitrage on a functional status quo.