[lannisterstark]

>If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested. Why are there different rules for large corporations?

Shouldn't you be wondering why is it illegal for you to do the first thing rather than the last?

Why shouldn't you be able to start what you call a 'gypsy taxi business.' what's the need for arresting you? Is it that authoritarian of a nation?

[EarthMephit]

I don't know, I used to catch gypsy cabs in London twenty odd years ago and you were taking your life into your own hands. There were some pretty shady operators. I can see why a government might want to license taxi drivers.

> Why shouldn't you be able to start what you call a 'gypsy taxi business.' what's the need for arresting you? Is it that authoritarian of a nation?

Why do we bother licensing drivers then too? Are we that much of an authoritarian nation that we need to control who drives a car? Should Uber drivers be allowed to drive without a driver's license too?

[lannisterstark]

Except in this case you can't start that business without getting arrested. You can still get a license without getting arrested.

It's strange that you'd bring this false equivalence.

>I can see why a government might want to license taxi drivers.

Applying for a taxi-driver license is a whole another different thing than just having taxi mafia run your entire taxi industry. Can the said uber drivers even apply for a taxi license?

[jazzyjackson]

do you disagree with all laws or just ones meant to protect workers' wages?

[mianos]

The taxi laws didn't end up protecting the wages of the drivers. They ended up protecting the rights of the 'plate owners', who, having too much cash, used taxi plates as an investment and rented out the taxis to drivers on a nightly basis often for half cash. Which makes taxi drivers do anything for cash over recorded transactions.

The whole system is crooked, even today.

[lannisterstark]

Giving certain monopolies complete control over the industry and not letting competition in which drives down the prices for consumers is anything but "protecting workers' wages."

You don't work if you are getting 0 rides because they're too expensive for end-user. What wages?

[protocolture]

Just the ones designed to protect cabcharges monopoly.

[abigail95]

if ride sharing didn't exist wages would be lower. companies like uber increase wages, see Seattle's law reducing the pay of drivers by enforcing minimums.

those laws do not protect wages, uber was right to protest them.

[johngladtj]

All the ones that restrict freedom without good reason

[NamTaf]

I'm not wondering why it's illegal for me to start a fly-by-night taxi business because I understand that the regulation was developed over a long time to avoid dodgy drivers who'd scam passengers or worse.

I can accept an argument where it was not fit-for-purpose for a tech-era reinterpretation of how vetted drivers deliver this service. Despite that, I think you're probably reaching if you were to try to tell me that you don't understand why the prevailing legislation existed in order to ensure passengers were picked up by vetted, known drivers whose identities were known and who could face recourse if they scammed passengers (e.g. by driving them around in circles to inflate fares), held passengers hostage or worse.