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?
> 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?
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?
those laws do not protect wages, uber was right to protest them.
You don't work if you are getting 0 rides because they're too expensive for end-user. What wages?
The whole system is crooked, even today.
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.