| > You have created a convoluted ex post facto defense Why is it convoluted? Watch the process that has happened with every other technological development in the last (say) 40 years? How is what I've described any different? > A group of taxi owners helped implement a state-enforced monopoly at the expense of the rest of society. You assume that the downsides of the "monopoly" (I'll ignore the twisting of the conventional meaning of words there) are larger than the upsides, and yet you seem to similarly assume that the downsides of Uber are smaller than the upsides. Society got a new line of work that made a reasonable living, control over the drivers in the interest of safety and accountability. Those are not exactly like the discovery of fire or the dawn of agriculture, but they are not of zero worth. I also note how your description of "A group of taxi owners helped implement" has an implicit negative tone, something alone the lines of regulatory capture. Yet we regularly hear calls for regulations to be created with the participation of those affected by it, so that legislatures and civil servants don't make stupid mistakes/decisions. Look, I'm not really interesting in defending the medallion systems. Taxi service in many places sucked under it and conditions for many drivers weren't exactly what society might have been aiming for. But tearing it down in favor of another mixed bag of pros & cons needs to be done with a subtle weighing for the relative pros & cons, not the reckless and giddy greed of a company like Uber. |