Please enjoy them, then. The rest of us whose judgment is sufficient to choose our own taxis would appreciate if you kept the cops out of our private choices.
Now I'm not saying that the current regulation shouldn't get refreshed to consider what is currently available. But I'm amazed how people are just all or nothing about regulation.
You should want enough regulation so that a basic level of service is guaranteed. If that is not the case, it becomes too hard for customer to efficiently compare services. Like in this case, you should be able to compare taxi companies in less than a few minutes. If you need more than that, then chance are that you will stick with the reliable provider you know. Good competition happens when consumers are willing to try alternative.
I guess what I'm saying is judgement is contextual.
Technology changes, people change so regulations must change with it.
We should version control all laws and regulations and we should debug them when we see people taking advantage of them in unexpected ways.
Do not forget that Uber, TaxiMagic, etc. are still closed and managed environments -- they are simply more opaque, as a corporation is choosing the makeup of that market instead of a government entity.
Laws are already version controlled and debugged when necessary, where does that come from? Laws are amended and repealed all the time, in every level of legislation.
Plus the first one is a market place the second is just one taxi.
Hell I wouldn't mind if a government entity launched an app that did the same thing.
But aside, the problem is not in the individual problem theirselves.
The problem is that an excessive deregulation is a part of a large process of demolition of the human rights of the great majority of the population.
Paradoxically, such huge problem is difficult to notice, because it requires vision.
In a world where there would be an excess of human rights and slow economy, deregulation would be fine. In such world, I would agree to liberalize the taxing and housing.
We're on the opposite side, though. So keeping deregulating is going to make the disaster we're already in even worse.
Quick, tell me which ISP provides fiber to the home with unlimited bandwidth? Only 1, so far, and only in limited areas. If it was ONLY our judgement that determined the quality, then I would be all for it. Unfortunately, there's sometimes a race to the bottom. Regulations help, to a certain extent, to control that. I know I wouldn't want open heart surgery provided by the lowest bidder.
His choice is to allow variety, competition, and customization so that more people get a chance to find the service that satisfies their needs.
I don't think anyone is saying to completely do away with all regulation in every instance - but have you seen the competitive barrier taxi regulation in most metro areas? It's specifically designed to prevent competition from those without massive resources. It's the stereotypical big guy keeping the little guy down with their million dollar medallions and special connections to lawmakers.
Taxi and hotel regulation IMO comes with a safety aspect which should, for example, protect lone or vulnerable travellers from harm (to a limited extent, of course, but some is better than none). Personally, I will accept a bit of restriction to my options in return for widely vetted service provision.
Or do you actually believe that all these regulations are going to prevent somebody from kidnapping people?
I sincerely doubt that.
I don't have time to look up the answers because of work, but I'm genuinely curious if anyone knows. It seems like these are reasonable questions to ask, and could lead to a constructive conversation about the role and necessity of regulation.
Many things that keep you safe every day are due to regulation, not hindered by it.
The first question is, why should we care if the driver is liable? If the driver wants to share the liability with the employer; we have a system of enforced agreements for that, it's called contracts.
But regardless, that didn't answer my question. When someone is killed, there's a trial to judge who is responsible for the tragedy. If the judge/jury thinks that Uber is (in part) responsible, we don't need regulations to force them to pay. If they don't, why should they pay?
Regulations seem like a way to replace the justice system with blind rules.
Many things that keep you safe every day are due to regulation, not hindered by it.
Who says I want to be safe? Why do you need to force that decision on me?
I can understand that you and others want to be safe. But the solution is easy: you keep a program with all those checks and certifications and you provide a nice symbol that only those drivers can use on their cabs (everyone else would be prosecuted for fraud).
Then drivers can choose to take the certification, and people can easily choose if they want to only use certified taxi services or not.
I can see why you'd want licensing for taxi drivers (to help against customers getting ripped off or mugged), but what's the point of limiting the number of taxis (which is really one of the main points against taxi regulation)? I'm not sure it restricts the number of cars in the streets, if people who would otherwise take a cheap taxi now have to own a car instead. My point is there is such a thing as too much regulation.
> My point is there is such a thing as too much regulation.
However, I absolutely want smart regulation that gets out of the way where it isn't helping anyone and ensures that the services people want can be delivered.
That being said, I would prefer better public transit than more taxis, but that's just another side of the same many-sided die.
Taxis, like all other cars, clog up the roads with their inefficient size to passengers ratio, and pollute the air. Limiting the number of taxis can be a matter of maintaining a half way liveable city.
If there were plenty of cheap taxis in my town (Amsterdam) I would use them a lot, because I'm a big fat lazy motherfucker. Unfortunately, there are too many people like me, and our selfishness would be detrimental to the society around us.
(I'm typing this as it's pouring outside and I have to get to the office. I would love a cheap taxi right about now, but the world doesn't revolve around me.)
Pardon my idealistic views, but it would be better to curb demand for taxis with: a. cheaper, more consistently on-time public transportation b. safer bike routes c. casual carpool programs
The real question is why you rather take a taxi than your local public transportation.
The previous poster is from Europe, I'm guessing that you're from North America. In which case your definition of an "appropriate response" to societal problems and market externalities is completely different.
Regulating in order to maximise the value to all of society is perfectly appropriate for Europeans.
Eh, probably because public transport would have to cost twice as much as a taxi to make it even half as comfortable? Not even counting that a taxi will take you door to door?
taxis arose because public transportation doesn't always go where people want and is not as timely. Regulation is required for safety, it should not be used to curtail competition against entrenched interests
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/31/157477611/does-new...
Why, exactly?
Regulation prevents people getting profits by externalizing their costs onto others without their consent.
How many stay-at-home parents pay taxes on their income? Or would you be ok with AirBnB if payment mostly occurred through barter or a "gift economy?"
I, too, am alarmed by the changes in campaign funding we have seen in the last 20 years. The author applies his alarm narrowly to problems in his private equity portfolio. I do not share his alarm on that particular topic.
By and large, I prefer to live in a world with taxi and hotel regulation, even if it impairs the ability of some bay area millionaires to add to their fortunes. Not all regulation is a sign of regulatory capture. Not all lobbying is intrinsically bad. Not every improvement in efficiency improves outcomes for society.