I’m struggling to understand the moral character of taxi service regulatory capture and monopolization.

Your taxi crashes because the driver skipped brake maintenance and his insurance doesn't reimburse you for your hospital costs because commercial transportation isn't covered. Sure would be nice to have some minimum requirements for taxis.

If maintenance schedules and insurance regulations are “moral” issues, what isn’t?

The moral issue is when the executives at Uber know with certainty that their driver compensation and incentives push drivers to neglect required maintenance on their vehicles.

Much in the same way tobacco companies knew for a long time how addictive and harmful smoking was.

And how Facebook knows they let their advertisers scam their users, and the way social media was pushing teen suicides higher. They knew and kept pushing policies which made the problem worse. All so they could collect bigger compensation packages.

Eh… there’s a point to be made about “enforced low risk tolerance” being a societal issue.

Lead in gasoline is bad, but in general I think individuals are perfectly capable of determining whether they are willing to risk a taxi ride.

Would they risk a taxi ride if they knew that Uber failed to properly background check a driver, who later kidnapped and raped one of his passengers, and Uber's response was to hire private investigators to dig up personal information on the victim in an attempt to discredit her? [1]

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42291495