If people setup businesses offering rides full-time and those businesses perform better than cab companies or buses, who cares? If the business is full of drivers (or just a driver) who doesn't follow fair business practices it's not going to be successful. Sure, they may trick a couple people, but it won't take long for them to be shunned.
If such a company existed that could get me from A to B at half the cost of a regular cab and they had a decent reputation, I'd use 'em. Hell, I wouldn't even care if the vehicles had been inspected recently; I can wear a seat belt.
Who knows if it would even be a viable business; maybe none of the companies would do a good enough job vetting drivers or provide enough protection to get enough business, but the market should be allowed to decide that, not a bus company. If "Bob's Taxi" existed, I wouldn't care, so long as they weren't outright lying. If they said, "Hey, we don't have as many consumer protections or regulation as regular cabs but we're cheaper." I would have no problem with that at all.
Easy: because many of the problems the bad businesses will cause are externalities.
Your argument as stated is, "we should eliminate all taxicab and car service regulation". I assume you want to refine it a bit more. At the very least, if that's your stance, you can no longer argue that it is crazy for the state to shut down services like this: first, pass the law that deregulates cabs, then start the shadow taxi dispatch service.
No, I kinda like it the way it is actually. Look, I think cab regulation is a good thing; let it be regulated. Despite the inherent inefficiencies and abuse that comes with any sort of regulation, I'm sure it helps consumers by providing strict rules for cabbies and cab companies.
Except, we're not talking about a Cab company because it's not licensed as one. If I want to drive people around in my car all day for a fee and I put an ad in the newspaper that says "Tom's Kinda Cab Company; I Drive You Places" why should that be illegal? If someone asks "Is this a regulated cab service" I say "No, but it's half the price!" Either they use my service or they don't. If I get turned down by so many people that it's not viable employment, I guess it's time to look elsewhere.
And, perhaps I'm being naive here, but I have no reason to believe that if I were to provide a horrible service that it would somehow affect the bottom line of Yellow Cab. I'm all about giving people choices and letting the market decide. If you decide to order a cab from some deregulated company you've never heard of and you get kidnapped and tortured instead of driven to the bar, well, that's your own fault. It's certainly not "all the cab companies'" fault. And that cab company probably won't be around long.
I think I mostly agree. But then, we're talking about a condition that assumes PickupPal fails as an enterprise. If they succeed, and this is forced to scale, then there's a real issue.
My original argument is really just that "it's not crazy for there to be a legal concern about this service". I think my argument is holding up OK.
I have all sorts of concerns about such a service, I just don't think Government should decide if I get to worry about those concerns or if they'll just eliminate them for me by taking away the choice in the first place.
And, no, I would not classify a legal concern in this matter as "crazy."
How does a heavily regulated industry survive when it's forced to compete with deregulated competitors? Look how much better the LC carriers do than United and American. And that's just price deregulation; Southwest still has a crushing regulatory burden.
Short term, I agree, PickupPal is not the end of western civilization. But the "pitch" behind this service is basically the total deregulation of car service.
They'd compete the same way they always do... by providing something (guarantee, etc.) the deregulated companies can't. It'll cost more to be "regulated," but that cost is passed onto the consumer. If the consumer puts X guarantee about price, boom, competing. If the consumer doesn't then that means X guarantee isn't necessary and it's time to stop being "regulated" before they go out of business.
Then again, even if regulation doesn't help at all, it's still a name; something familiar; something proven. Why do people by OEM hardware packaged by a familiar company at twice the cost when they could just buy it OEM?
And, as you can see with United and American, the other thing they always do is fail. The answer to "how do you compete when you have a huge regulatory burden that a competitor providing the same value doesn't" is, you don't. And again, that was just price and route deregulation. Southwestern still has to comply with the FAA.
There's no regulation a PickupPal driver needs to comply with. You can't start a nail salon without jumping through more hoops than a cab driver would to sign up for this. How do you even tax it?
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. I don't disagree that if two companies are providing the same value and one has no regulatory burden, that company will succeed while the other will fail. That in no way proves that deregulation is bad, it merely proves that regulation was, apparently, unnecessary in that instance.
I just don't see the debate here. If you provide X under regulation Y and I merely provide X, if the average consumer doesn't care about regulation Y then you will fail because I can afford to provide X cheaper than you. If the average consumer only feels warm and fuzzy with regulation Y, I will fail because we are obviously not providing the same (perceived) value.
All your Southwestern analogy proves is that price and route regulation is really stupid and wasteful.
I think that's perfectly fine. Probably not an option I would elect for were I seeking plastic surgery, but that's neither here nor there.
I am sick of those lines. Those lines have caused me to lose the ability to smoke in a bar (or basically anywhere else) for christ sake. Those lines have created "helmet laws" and all sorts of "protect Joe from himself" bullshit laws that exist for the sole purpose of annoying me, near as I can tell.
Nobody makes Joe sit at the bar any more than anybody makes him get in my Cab (which I intend to use as a battering ram). If, in the course of my cabbing, I were to break an actual law (speed limit, driving uninsured, etc.) then I should be punished. Until then, let me drive recklessly and force small talk with strangers in peace. If you don't let me do that then you've created a law to protect Joe from his own idiocy which is bad enough, but you've also ruined a perfectly good market opportunity.
Once you have kids, who might mistakenly choose an unlicensed unsafe taxi over a safe one, you might change your mind. Especially if it's your daughter - rape by unlicensed taxi drivers is a real risk.
This isn't about protecting joe from himself, it's about protecting vulnerable people who might make a poor decision just to save a bit of cash.
Similar to smoking - it's an expensive addiction (For the smoker and society) and should be actively discouraged. Also it's kinda nice not to have smokers blowing their smoke in mine+my kids faces any more.
I don't say this very often, but: Are you insane?! First of all, any argument that starts with "Once you have kids" isn't an argument at all; I knew I should have stopped there and saved myself money on blood pressure medication.
Secondly, why is it the Government's job (or anyone's job) to "protect vulnerable people who might--" okay, I can't even do this. That phrase means the same thing as "protect them from themselves" -- the individual makes a poor decision which affects the individual. Since it falls to a parent to make responsible decisions for an ignorant child, you've once again failed to make a point. "Once" I have kids (I like your finality), I will probably make sure to avoid having them raped to save $10. I could be wrong.
As for smoking, it is once again an individual choice. Were there no smokers, I'm sure there would be others ready and willing to use tax dollars to pay their medical expenses (which I have never done, and since I've given years of service to this country everyone can fuck off anyway). If a private establishment decides they wish, for whatever reason, to permit smoking on their property, that is a right the company rationally deserves and in no way warrants regulation by the Government or any other regulatory body.
If you prefer non-smoking establishments, show it with your wallet. If such a time came when it was detrimental to a business to afford said luxury to smokers, they would stop. What you feel is "kinda nice" should not warrant a law. It's called personal preference and we all have it. If all of my personal preferences were turned into law, there would be many changes to the world, most of which many people would conservatively call "cruel and unusual."
"the individual makes a poor decision which affects the individual" - except in the case of smoking where the poor decision also affects anyone else in the vicinity of the smoker, including those who have chosen not to smoke.
Everyone else in the vicinity of the smoker chose to be there, knowing that person was smoking. Back when it was legal, there wasn't some great mystery to it; you went to a bar where smoking was allowed, people were probably smoking. It's not like they waited for nonsmokers to fill up the place and all lit up in unison, attempting to lower life expectancy by a few seconds.
The smoker is smoking; a poor decision that affects them. You're in a smokey bar; a poor decision that affects you. The only difference is the smoker isn't complaining. There's no sense complaining about a situation one puts themselves in; there's even less sense in making laws which attempt to keep people from putting themselves in said situations.
A private establishment could force compulsory games of Russian Roulette for all I care. As long as there's a sign on the door.
"minicab rape" was a frequently enough occurance in London that there were frequent public service announcements before movies just last year, asking people not to take an unlicensed cab, showing how you risk getting raped otherwise. ("minicab" here is any other cab than the usual bulky black London cab).
My partner's reaction to this was similar but converse: "finally, hitchhiking murderers no longer have wait out in awful weather!"
I mean, this is all hyperbole today. Do I think this is the way deregulation should work, with someone just up and deciding to ignore it and forcing some ad hoc response? No. Do I think it's a big enough deal right now to waste time outlawing? No. Would I fund it? No.
No, you don't have to protect people from their own bad judgment. There's an argument for better parenting, not for cartels protecting themselves through regulation.
If such a company existed that could get me from A to B at half the cost of a regular cab and they had a decent reputation, I'd use 'em. Hell, I wouldn't even care if the vehicles had been inspected recently; I can wear a seat belt.
Who knows if it would even be a viable business; maybe none of the companies would do a good enough job vetting drivers or provide enough protection to get enough business, but the market should be allowed to decide that, not a bus company. If "Bob's Taxi" existed, I wouldn't care, so long as they weren't outright lying. If they said, "Hey, we don't have as many consumer protections or regulation as regular cabs but we're cheaper." I would have no problem with that at all.