[voicereasonish]

You're confusing "more efficient" with "deciding to not abide by licensing regulation".

Regulation exists to protect consumers. It's like that shady hotel chain that sidestep any regulation - airbnb.

Only in the startup bubble is "Ignoring consumer protection laws" spun as "distruptive".

Good on the black cabs I say.

[fennecfoxen]

Well. If you're going to make a moral appeal to The Law, my question would be whether the laws are actually there to protect the consumer, or whether they're actually there to protect the entrenched interests under the guise of protecting the consumer.

So here's my challenge for you: If these Uber cars are, in fact, injuring the consumer, you should probably be able to find a bunch of reports of disgruntled consumers who were injured in some way (bad service, ripped off, etc).

All I've heard about is very-happy consumers, and disgruntled taxi drivers (who have a conflict of interest here). So please forgive me if I think this matter is about the cabbies who think of the passengers as some form or another of chattel. :P

[voicereasonish]

I very much doubt Uber does enough business to draw any conclusions.

Look at another example though - airbnb negative reviews and experiences - you'll find millions of them.

[briandh]

> Regulation exists to protect consumers.

Some regulation, sure. But quite often it exists to protect producers and consumer protection is merely an excuse, and even regulation passed with the genuine intention of protecting consumers often has the effect of protecting producers.

[AJ007]

Regulation exists to protect consumers, or at least that is what voters are told.

[kaonashi]

So regulation never protects consumers?