So much for the free market...
They're the reason why (at least where I live) there's a alcohol limit of 0 0/00 for taxi drivers, with zero tolerance for violating it.
Those pesky regulations enforce mandatory maintenance standards for vehicles. They don't only have to look shiny. They actually have to be safe to drive.
Damn regulations dictate valid and adequate insurance, which covers commercial driving activity and covers the drivers liability in case you are hurt, maimed, or killed.
Regulations enforce that you can't be price gouged, they enforce some sensible mandatory standards (drivers may be prohibited by law to refuse transportation because you're blind and need a guide dog) and provide you with a venue to complain when things go wrong.
But hey, just do away with all that in the name of commerce.
The modern state seems to have become little more than a huge and complex tax-collecting machine. Of course people can interact consensually, with or without the mediation of technology. But as soon as money starts changing hands, then the state will get involved, because it wants its pound of flesh. It would be naïve to believe otherwise.
Answering your question isn't simple. I foremost think about how the lawmaking process itself could be changed to make it significantly harder to create superficial laws: the type of laws that interfere with consenting people; the type of laws largely responsible for so many prison economies and victimless "crimes." This doesn't answer your question. This is to say that it's a good question and it should be thought about.
At least for the latter there are regulations in place in the taxi market here in Europe.
Finally citizens can decide. Vote for politicians which going to make change injust law (or what we see as injust). This works at least sometimes. Homosexuality was a criminal offense in most countries forty years ago.
Frankly, that's a cop out, because you'd be insane to vote for the politician based on his/her opinions on taxi regulation laws. Our political systems simply don't allow real choice.
And even if you count voting in a broad direction as having real choice, that still doesn't work, because we have no pro-"free markets" party in this country.
So, no, we can't.
So is saying that the rules can be broken because there are no parties who would remove them. European democracies generally allow people to form new parties, and I don't belive Portugal is an exception. If the population was pro free market, there would be parties that are pro free market. If there are no such parties, that is because the population doesn't support that idea.
Because people are terrible at assessing risk and would chose cheaper cabs rather than insured cabs.