My car has a hot pink mustache—and it just might disrupt the taxi business

Smartphone apps + "ride-sharing" = travel revolution? Two startups say yes.

Read the whole story

 

[MyGaffer]

There may be a debate to be had about whether regulations for taxi services are all reasonable, but one of the goals is to make sure that people get safely to their destination and charged the correct amount. The insurance requirement is also there to protect the passenger. This has a fun, easy-going feel, but I'm not sure that should really trump safety and fraud prevention.

Government simply has no compelling justification to use force (the threat of fines and/or imprisonment) to prevent an adult from contracting with another adult to do something which would otherwise be legal were money not involved. There are always well-intentioned excuses for such government intrusion on basic rights, such as fraud prevention--but fraud is already illegal, such laws already serve as a reasonable enough deterrent to prevent most of it, and the voluntary rating and reputation systems which "ride-sharing" communities use are excellent and less-intrusive ways to be proactive with the same issues professional licensing has traditionally tackled.

There can even be professional organizations which offer voluntary licensing, inspections, etc., to which companies or individuals could choose to submit for the purpose of gaining a recognized accreditation. Government need not mandate it; the market would provide for such a thing because some customers would find it an added value.

Not to mention preventing various forms of discrimination (whether not picking up certain people, or not providing services to certain areas e.g. black neighborhoods).

The idea that no one would ever serve minority communities if not for government mandates requiring it is a strangely common fixation, and a very mistaken one. Many of the reasons why this is the case are tackled in this nice little article:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Discrimination.html

and there's some great discussion about it here:

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/201 ... an_11.html

Even in then worst of times, when minority communities were pervasively discriminated against and systematically underserved, free markets allowed them to develop ways to serve themselves--e.g., Motown records, and the many Jewish institutions which developed and were at the cutting edge of economics, politics, and technology for centuries because of discrimination against them. When government decides to get involved, however, it's more often to do harm rather than good--for example "separate but equal" Jim Crow laws which worsened and codified what had been informal discrimination into formal law.

The counterargument is that regulation also serves to maintain rates at a certain level, and that may not be good for consumers. But I don't think this is the best solution, especially given that part of why they are undercutting the competition is by cutting corners on licensing, vehicle maintenance, and employee pay and benefits (since basically they are getting a large number of part-timers to do the work).

It's not a legitimate role of government to create artificial scarcities and barriers to entry, even if the goal is artificially increasing wages and benefits--because government can only do so by violating one party's basic rights in order to enrich another party. That's bad enough, but then government licensing mandates for things as basic as sharing transportation or the like always lag behind the times when disruptive technologies develop and prop up old, inefficient industries at a great cost to their forced-to-keep-using-them customers.

Last point, undercut taxi services this way, who is going to provide taxi services in the middle of the night? Is Lyft going to get volunteers for those shifts too?

There will always be a need for actual taxi and/or similar professional services for just this reason. We'd just need fewer of them overall, and they'd specialize in these high-demand times. The market adjusts to serve whatever conditions in which it finds itself--that's one of the advantages of having a free market: it's flexible to changing circumstances.

Except that many people in our society are willing to trade some freedoms for a safer life. This is not always a bad thing as you make it out to be.

Do you think the FDA should be abolished? I mean any adult should be able to pay any other adult for any old food and any old drug he cares to sell right? Regardless of whether the food if tainted or the drugs are safe. We give up a little bit of freedom for safer food and medicine. There are reasons for the current regulation of taxis.

 

[MyGaffer]

Nobody should be banned from driving others, whether for pay or not. Or should car-pooling be banned? When I went to summer camp as a kid, some counselors volunteered to drive campers for a small stipend. They drove their own cars, not at all regulated under taxi laws. Should that have been banned, so that I wouldn't have been able to get to camp, in the name of safety?

Do you think the FDA should be abolished? I mean any adult should be able to pay any other adult for any old food and any old drug he cares to sell right? Regardless of whether the food if tainted or the drugs are safe. We give up a little bit of freedom for safer food and medicine. There are reasons for the current regulation of taxis.

The FDA certainly should not have the authority to ban. It should test, mandate labeling of ingredients and safety hazards, etc. but my body and mind are my most personal possessions, and my right to put what I want in my body is essentially absolute.

You can put whatever you want into your body, the FDA ensures that no one can SELL you poisonous food or medicine. You can still put whatever fool thing you want into your "most personal possession".

As far as the people who volunteered to take you to summer camp, those people were not doing it for pay, so they would fine. No one is banning giving rides. These companies are trying to be a taxi service without having to register or meet any of the requirements of a taxi service.

 

[MyGaffer]

Does anyone really believe that journalist trying the service to write about just HAPPENS to get the head guy's of both companies on their fist pickup for each company? Seriously? That does not pass the smell test.

 

[MyGaffer]

There may be a debate to be had about whether regulations for taxi services are all reasonable, but one of the goals is to make sure that people get safely to their destination and charged the correct amount. The insurance requirement is also there to protect the passenger. This has a fun, easy-going feel, but I'm not sure that should really trump safety and fraud prevention.

Government simply has no compelling justification to use force (the threat of fines and/or imprisonment) to prevent an adult from contracting with another adult to do something which would otherwise be legal were money not involved. There are always well-intentioned excuses for such government intrusion on basic rights, such as fraud prevention--but fraud is already illegal, such laws already serve as a reasonable enough deterrent to prevent most of it, and the voluntary rating and reputation systems which "ride-sharing" communities use are excellent and less-intrusive ways to be proactive with the same issues professional licensing has traditionally tackled.

There can even be professional organizations which offer voluntary licensing, inspections, etc., to which companies or individuals could choose to submit for the purpose of gaining a recognized accreditation. Government need not mandate it; the market would provide for such a thing because some customers would find it an added value.

Not to mention preventing various forms of discrimination (whether not picking up certain people, or not providing services to certain areas e.g. black neighborhoods).

The idea that no one would ever serve minority communities if not for government mandates requiring it is a strangely common fixation, and a very mistaken one. Many of the reasons why this is the case are tackled in this nice little article:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Discrimination.html

and there's some great discussion about it here:

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/201 ... an_11.html

Even in then worst of times, when minority communities were pervasively discriminated against and systematically underserved, free markets allowed them to develop ways to serve themselves--e.g., Motown records, and the many Jewish institutions which developed and were at the cutting edge of economics, politics, and technology for centuries because of discrimination against them. When government decides to get involved, however, it's more often to do harm rather than good--for example "separate but equal" Jim Crow laws which worsened and codified what had been informal discrimination into formal law.

The counterargument is that regulation also serves to maintain rates at a certain level, and that may not be good for consumers. But I don't think this is the best solution, especially given that part of why they are undercutting the competition is by cutting corners on licensing, vehicle maintenance, and employee pay and benefits (since basically they are getting a large number of part-timers to do the work).

It's not a legitimate role of government to create artificial scarcities and barriers to entry, even if the goal is artificially increasing wages and benefits--because government can only do so by violating one party's basic rights in order to enrich another party. That's bad enough, but then government licensing mandates for things as basic as sharing transportation or the like always lag behind the times when disruptive technologies develop and prop up old, inefficient industries at a great cost to their forced-to-keep-using-them customers.

Last point, undercut taxi services this way, who is going to provide taxi services in the middle of the night? Is Lyft going to get volunteers for those shifts too?

There will always be a need for actual taxi and/or similar professional services for just this reason. We'd just need fewer of them overall, and they'd specialize in these high-demand times. The market adjusts to serve whatever conditions in which it finds itself--that's one of the advantages of having a free market: it's flexible to changing circumstances.

Except that many people in our society are willing to trade some freedoms for a safer life. This is not always a bad thing as you make it out to be.

Do you think the FDA should be abolished? I mean any adult should be able to pay any other adult for any old food and any old drug he cares to sell right? Regardless of whether the food if tainted or the drugs are safe. We give up a little bit of freedom for safer food and medicine. There are reasons for the current regulation of taxis.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

While regulation does have its place, and there are absolutely gray areas this quote does not cover, the OP does make valid points. Comparing tainted food or medicine with a ride sharing service is excessive, since taxi service is not necessary for preserving life. If you're not comfortable with the service, feel free to walk, but don't ruin this for everyone else.

Who is ruining what? The people on this forum are debating how much regulation of industry we should have in this country and others. None of us are going to be shutting down these services ourselves.