[tici_88]

The law should apply equally to everyone, regardless of how 'cool' you are considered to be.

If the law in Italy requires taxis and taxi-like services to to pay for certain operational licenses and to comply with certain government regulations, it is only fair that Uber and all other similar services should be expected to do the same. Uber does not pay or require their drivers to pay the licenses and comply with the regulations, hence the ruling.

[tluyben2]

But these laws (same as in Spain where I live) are there for protectionism and that is, very visibly in these two countries, not a good thing for 'the people'.

[tici_88]

I think we should let "the people" decide what is good for them, and not us doing it for them. Italy is a democratic country with a government and legal system that is upholding the laws. The court ruling appears to be in line with those laws, so i don't see a problem here.

Keep in mind, this is Europe and not the US. The argument "more car-based transportation at lower prices is good for everyone" is not necessarily something that the majority of the population in Italy or elsewhere in Europe is necessarily aspiring to. So if the government - at state and local level - is keeping the number of taxis in check by high taxes/fees while subsidizing green or mass transit, thats OK too. And the government of Italy has every right to do that. just my two cents.

[icebraining]

Is anyone advocating for invading Italy to change its laws? All the talk about Italy having the right to do what it wants is a strawman, nobody argues they don't have that right.

[Heliosmaster]

But that's exactly one of the problems: for example, the fact that current taxi drivers paid money for their license, is not written in any law: licenses are limited and the only way to become a driver is to buy one from somebody else who is retiring. Unions are lobbying very hard, soliciting drivers to evade taxes and taking a cut.

There was recently a very controversial reportage about this (in italian): http://www.iene.mediaset.it/puntate/2017/03/26/maisano-quell...

There's a lot of shady stuff even if they seem to be following the law...

[rahimnathwani]

"The law should apply equally to everyone"

In this case, the law doesn't apply equally to everyone. Holders of existing taxi licenses actively lobby to restrict the issuance of additional licenses. This isn't new: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/articl...

[_joe]

The solution to that is to allow more licences, and maybe to use those new licences to compensate current drivers for the loss of value of the licence they bought.

Allowing a corporation to just ignore existing regulations while everyone else is respecting them is a completely different story.

Let me add: I have very little sympathy for the taxi drivers guild and their practices, but I don't think that's a good reason to allow Uber to operate outside of the law.

[rahimnathwani]

Yup

[ubernostrum]

And Uber heavily subsidizes ride costs in an attempt to put competition out of business.

Why do you favor one rent-seeking monopolist over another?

[rahimnathwani]

I made no statement for, against or about Uber. I just said the taxi laws don't treat people equally.

[grecy]

> If the law in Italy requires taxis and taxi-like services to to pay for certain operational licenses and to comply with certain government regulations, it is only fair that Uber and all other similar services should be expected to do the same.

I understand what you are saying, and agree in principle, though a big part of me worries the outcome is stagnation.

i.e. nothing will ever improve or change because the laws are such that everything must be done strictly to the letter.

It would appear that taxis are extremely expensive and many people around the world find them inconvenient. Uber is trying to change this. I'm not saying they should be allowed to "get away" with breaking the existing rules, but surely as a society we should allow things to be attempted/trailed if there is a chance something will get better.

[Markoff]

your comment is too rational and not in favor of American corporation but law abiding businesses, so I don't think it will be very popular with Americans here which are defending American corporation no matter what

[nkkollaw]

Really.

I'm Italian and I oppose the horrible, horrible taxi lobby, as well as the equally horrible, extremely expensive service taxi drivers provide.

Luckily there's car sharing were I live, but I have no sympathy for taxi drivers (and it doesn't seem like they're getting a lot of love in other comments), or anyone who's in business solely because there are laws to protect their category, rather than offering a good service than people want to pay for.

Why is it fair that taxi drivers can provide a crappy service and get protected by laws, while other categories actually have do provide good service because they have competition and they would close down? Why not protect local restaurants from McDonald's, then?

[_joe]

If McDonald's provided cheap food by ignoring the labor laws, would that be fair? Or any safety regulation on how food is preserved, etc. I could go on, but I think you get my point.

I share your sentiment towards our taxi drivers, but I'd rather ask our laws to change to be fairer than to advocate Uber's right to just break the law.

[camus2]

> Why not protect local restaurants from McDonald's, then?

Since when McDonalds doesn't follow the Italian laws and regulations? can you show me an example of McDonalds breaking Italian laws or food safety and regulations? Can you show me a McDonalds operating as an illegal restaurant?

[nkkollaw]

That's not what I meant with that sentence, you might have missed the point I was trying to make.

The sentence you quoted means: why not add a limited-number restaurant license that costs 200,000, without which you can't open a restaurant, to protect local restaurants? Why not create a law where Italian companies MUST produce the goods they sold on Italian soil in Italy instead of China, to protect Italian factory workers? Why not create a law that each book published MUST be printed and available at all local libraries besides released as an ebook to protect local libraries from closing because of the internet?

What's so special about taxi drivers?

Why can taxi drivers pay taxes based on a random figure they themselves provide without proof, while even if I charge a client €1 I must issue a receipt, and then KEEP IT IN PAPER FOR 10 YEARS?

I would love to hear any valid enough answer that would make me change my mind.

[Sacho]

These may be worthwhile points to pursue, but it's not the jobs of the magisters to legislate from the bench. When you ask "why not create a law", this is a question to direct to the politicians you elect, not the magisters who apply the law.

[nkkollaw]

It's not their job per se, but they don't blindly follow the law, they apply it.

There are many, many cases where a judge will go against a law and create a precedent, which most of the times will be followed in following trials if the situation is the same or very similar.

[lorenzhs]

You missed the GP's point. Their question was why are taxi drivers protected from competition but restaurant owners aren't? Why is there competition in serving food (a profession that also requires adherence to regulations, in this case food safety etc) but not in driving people around?

[Markoff]

McDonald's does business in accordance with local laws,i have no problem with any foreign corporation which follow local laws same as their competitors

you don't have in Italy taxi apps with ratings, choice of cars and pretty much everything same as in Uber just legal? strange...

[nkkollaw]

Taxi drivers are a lobby, like notaries.

There is nothing worth defending.

Signing a document at a notary can cost 1,000 and for no reason. In the States the same thing gets done for 50 by a notary (I can talk about that).

These are imposed monopolies. They must end. You will damage a few hundred thousand people for a few years, but 60 million (in case of Italy) would gain immensely, as well as future generations.

[maverick_iceman]

I'm not an American and I completely support Uber. They did a great thing to break up the taxi cartel. Most of these laws are results of regulatory capture. They lead to an inefficient market and price gouging.

Also just because a law is in the law book doesn't make it sacrosanct. Think about the Jim Crow laws before the Civil Rights movement.