like Airbnb getting sued in New York?
or Uber/Lyft/etc having to go through extortionary-like procedures in California?
...
or Uber/Lyft/etc having to go through extortionary-like procedures in California?
...
A free market is a very specific definition, there are things like atomicity of actors and whatnot. Loads of regulations can help meet that, for example:
-Governments handing out tax credits to new companies helps free markets
-Governments setting in anti-trust laws helps free markets
-Governments setting disclosure regulations helps free markets
Some regulations harm free markets (namely things like entry controls), but others protect it. We need to learn to make the distinction
Hotels and taxis are regulated to protect consumers (think safety).
Requiring car manufacturers to sell via franchised dealers protects franchised dealers.
That's a big difference.
Taxis are regulated because you could have issues when someone gets into a random person's car. You can imagine how that would be dangerous for consumers (both physically and financially).
I personally like Uber a lot and had a good experience when I was able to use them. But, you could see how a lesser competitor could cut corners in background checking their drivers.
I'd rather have somethings explicitly regulated than trust that all companies are interested in spending money on things like background checks. AirBnB has the same flaws, but even more pronounced.
Forgive me for not knowing all the details, but what is the extortion in the fact that Taxi co's have to pay fees that Uber and Lyft don't? I'm guessing there is more to this than I know.
not that i'm a huge fan of unfettered capitalism, but just clarifying...
If you feel that use of the streets is not being rationed efficiently, or that heavy users of the streets are not paying enough relative to light users, then you can impose some kind of sliding scale or conditional tax on street use. This is not at all the same as an absolute cap on supply.