I think throwaw181ay is making a different argument, which is essentially that you should license the people (e.g. like a driver's license, which indicates proficiency) and not the thing, which is (basically) the car.
And they do -- you acquire the taxi driver certification ("this guy has good eyesight, isn't a criminal, knows the taxi rules") independently of the medallion ("no more than N cabs may be operating at any given time"). The two regs accomplish different purposes.
As the parent notes, in certain setups (like cap and trade) the tradeability of the license is important for ensuring that the restricted resource is used efficiently: the most economical emitters of carbon get the rights, and the most economical drivers get the medallions.
> the medallion ("no more than N cabs may be operating at any given time")
The whole point of this is to ensure that the price for taxi rides is higher than what the market-clearing price would be. In other words, it's a scam to rip off gthe consumer.
(Similar arguments apply to zoning regulations and house prices, of course)
There are good motives and bad motives behind every law. I don't find it productive to assert, as fact, that the malicious stuff is only kind, without addressing the good that they're ostensibly accomplishing.
You might as well dismiss all cap-and-trade proposals as being "just another scheme to raise energy prices".
As far as I knew, taxi licenses were there specifically to certify that the driver was trustworthy. After all, the service involves getting into a stranger's car...
As the parent notes, in certain setups (like cap and trade) the tradeability of the license is important for ensuring that the restricted resource is used efficiently: the most economical emitters of carbon get the rights, and the most economical drivers get the medallions.