PG is off the mark here. Companies like Uber explicitly ignore the existing laws and regulations. In the case of Tesla, the ruling just passed.
If services like Uber and Lyft simply decided to be a cab company with excellent technological underpinnings, people would have been quite happy with them and they would have been quite profitable. And they could have blown most cab companies out of the water. Buying up inefficient operators, consolidating them, and bringing them into the modern world of technology is a really good business plan.
Uber and Lyft are in trouble because they wanted to be exit strategy profitable rather than simply profitable. And they decided to do this by ignoring all of that icky stuff like liability insurance, commercial licensing, and following the law. In addition, Uber and Lyft tend to want to ply their trade in areas which are already profitable to cab companies rather than taking over areas that are underserved. If they were brokering rides in areas that can't get cabs easily, they would have lots of defenders.
There is a big difference between laws that actually protect consumers vs. laws that protect middlemen. The fact that pg can't see the difference is a pretty big issue.
Graham is exactly on the mark. The distinction between a law [previously existing for a long time, just recently existing, or about to exist] is laughably trivial. It is a worthless distinction to a person's opinion of a law or system's corruption.
A) Starting a business explicitly profiting from "efficiencies" created by breaking existing laws (Uber)
B) Starting a business that takes advantages of loopholes in the law and failing to take steps to ensure that customers follow the law (Amazon and Use Taxes)
C) Starting a business profiting from certain efficiencies without violating the laws on the books at the time (Tesla)
C) Some states have laws to ban auto-makers from making direct sales to consumers, while others do not.
You have attempted to make a distinction, but not a principled distinction. There is no reason (that I have seen) which explains why unlicensed car dealers are less harmful to the public than unlicensed taxi drivers.
There is no profound difference. No one is stating that the laws are perfectly paralleled. Nothing of this nature is perfectly paralleled. You're failing to appreciate that law is entirely arbitrary and worthless compared to an individual's opinion of the level of corruption surrounding that law. Your points A, B, C are meaningless to a person's opinion of the underlying validity and righteousness of those points.
> "PG is off the mark here. Companies like Uber explicitly ignore the existing laws and regulations. In the case of Tesla, the ruling just passed."
This indicates to me that the "profound" differences to him/her regarding "validity" is whether a law previously exists. (...Seemingly completely oblivious to the notion that much of what is made into law is insidious, vile, and of a precedence worth objecting.) If the point was only about systemic inconsistencies, that wan't clear.
There is only "profound difference" to the circular reasoning of law itself. There was no reason for me to address that. Legal frameworks are inherently rigid and without much individual conscience.
Taxi laws in many cities exist to both protect consumers (with criminal background checks and additional vehicle requirements), ensure parts of the city get served equally (requiring taxis to accept fares), and establish clear chains of liability. I don't believe there are anywhere near comparable safety arguments you can make for only allowing third-party dealerships.
Here's my two cents (you don't have to buy into it) - taxicab laws and regulations are frequently imperfect, and there is certainly an element of protectionism and cronyism. On the other hand, I don't want to live in a place without them. There is a reason that when I previous lived in London you'd often see "Don't take unlicensed cabs at night" adverts up at bus shelters. These laws are imperfect, but also necessary.
Edit: As someone has pointed out, dealerships make a similar safety argument. That said, I would imagine most rational people are able to see the difference between the two. It is still possible to regulate the sale of cars and allow manufacturers to sell directly. Similarly, I think it's possibly to have taxi laws that allow Uber to operate freely but also ensure the safety of those using the service.
Regulated taxi systems are worthwhile - if you don't think they are, try living somewhere with significant crime. Last year I ended up getting posted to Medellin, Colombia for a month - a city with one of the highest murder and violent crime rates in the world. However, it is also a city with a highly regulated taxi system, with criminal background checks and vehicle restrictions. I would happily get into a cab there at 1AM. I would not have considered it if there were zero regulations and restrictions on who could drive a cab, and what cars they could use.
Not so much with unlicensed taxis.
Please excuse the tangent here.
I respect your ability to have an opinion on the positions you personally feel are worth backing by violence (i.e. the nature of law). However, in turn, please respect the fact that nothing is literally "necessary," especially with such conflicted notions, beyond the word's use in hyperbole. Your respect of this point will allow for more respect and tolerance of opinions that differ from your own.
Even 99.9% of the planet agreeing on one issue does not necessarily make that issue necessary. It depends on the actual threat. This is especially the case when that one issue begins to directly impose violence on the 0.1% who disagree and who want to live nonviolently but differently from your own lifestyle.
It's very healthy to focus on solutions that improve awareness in matters where safety is significant. By all means, warn people. By all means, give people more access to the feedback of transparent information: e.g. transmitting knowledge to people about whether or not an entity is regulated by whichever particular system/regulator. But if you advocate the prohibition of a person trying to have a consensual relationship -- such as a person to Uber's service, a person willing to take that "risk" -- then you quickly tread into unethical territory. However small of a law it is in your perspective, it may be a large form of tyranny to the perspective of the people and entities you're directly willing to undermine or criminalize.
I'm sure PG had something reasonable in mind when he wrote the line, but your shoddy irrationalisms passed as reasoning are basically trojan-horseing his position.
Not that I expect city taxi commissions to apply the same standards.