News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Rideshare website ruled illegal. Parent comment

Re:Rideshare website ruled illegal by unalone on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @02:42PM (#362208)
But if they're going for regulation, they're going about it entirely backwards. You don't start with a regulated service and deny others entry. You begin with an open market, allowing sites like these, and then other people create a niche business of offering reliability through the same venues.

Right? What am I missing?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rideshare website ruled illegal by tptacek on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @02:50PM (#362220)
That the phenomenon you're talking about happened like 70 years ago.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rideshare website ruled illegal by mseebach on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @03:08PM (#362237)
What? There was a thriving free market and suddenly the public taxi-regulation-and-rationing scheme out-competed everyone else?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rideshare website ruled illegal by tptacek on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @03:13PM (#362243)
No, there was a thriving free market and the public taxi regulation scheme shifted the negative externalities that it was empirically observed to generate back onto the cab companies.

Regulated businesses don't "outcompete" unregulated businesses. That's why they're called "regulations" and not "features". You can argue that regulation is stupid, but:

* We won't settle the argument, because every point you make about competition I'll respond to with a negative externality, like, "anonymous unmarked drivers killing people by running red lights".

* You won't be refuting my original argument, which is that states are not crazy for getting upset by PickupPal.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rideshare website ruled illegal by unalone on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @02:54PM (#362226)
Aha! Color me ignorant, then, that makes sense.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rideshare website ruled illegal by tptacek on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @02:55PM (#362228)
:)
[ Parent | on HN ]