NB this does not apply in equal degrees across all industries, and your horses -> cars example doesn't qualify.

In addition, note that I was agreeing with you that the transition, on the whole, is definitely desirable. I'm only arguing that there may be moral consequences in not upholding society's end of the trade I describe above.

>not upholding society's end of the trade I describe above.

The deal - as it was, has been, or whatever, was simply some type of legislative barrier passed using the threat of imprisonment and/or fines as the stick. While you could argue that 'society' passed and agreed to these rules through the democratic legislative process, in reality it's far more arcane than that (don't watch sausages or laws getting made).

In reality, no law in a democracy can be promised to exist past the next election period. Sure, mostly it doesn't happen that way, but laws passed some time ago in a different technological state of progress are not inviolate, never-to-be-repealed things cast in stone.

There are no moral consequences at all. People win and lose every day, in every industry, for millions of reasons. It would be immoral to try and stop this creative destruction process and try to freeze life at a certain point. Because that would deny the future winners from winning, and permanently cast the losers in the 'loser' role.

The underlying beauty and strength of democracy is that it can change and destroy old concepts, old rules and old leaders peacefully. This is the killer feature that makes up for it's otherwise many flaws.

Government is often a poor proxy for society. I suspect most people in any given US city would not like to artificially limit the supply of taxi drivers and were not consulted about the decision to do so.

The only difference in this case is that the corrupt officials that betrayed the public interest in exchange for votes and support of a group of special interests are not in jail yet.