Exactly. Of course the regulations are worded and advertised as being about "consumer protection", what could the alternative possibly be? There is no way in hell a hotel lobby would write a law that plainly claimed to be for the protection of their interests.
When laws protecting Taxi monopolies claim to be for consumer protection, nobody here buys it. Those laws are for the protection of Taxi companies and unions. These laws are more of the same.
> "do you really think they are for that? In the authorial intent meaning of "for"?"
Why not? I mean, at this point your argument seems to be along the lines of "ah, but that's what they'd want you to think".
The vast majority of taxi laws are to protect the consumer: for example, obliging taxis to take you anywhere within the city limits clearly is of far more benefit the consumer than the taxi driver (the driver may not want to go to areas where there are fewer fares, for example.
Another example - here in London hackney drivers (taxis you can hail) must take an extensive test requiring memorisation of virtually every street. Again, this is of far more benefit to the consumer (a taxi driver who knows where he's going) than the driver (who has to spend a lot of time and money preparing for the test). Criminal background checks for taxi drivers: how is this not for consumer protection?
If you're going to claim that these regulations are primarily to serve business interests rather than consumers then please do, but at least cite a few examples. I'm sure they exist: I don't propose every regulation governing hotels and taxis are in the consumer's favor.
Yes, not all laws that are labeled as consumer protection have ulterior motivations (it would indeed be silly to argue that), but just from your list of examples the street memorization example certainly strikes me as one with dual motivation. It doesn't benefit people who want to become Taxi drivers, but it certainly benefits drivers who are already drivers. Tests like that keep competition low; Unions, formal or otherwise, love that sort of regulation. They simply adore it.
I did not think specific examples of taxi regulation were really necessary. HN always seems to be awash with stories about taxi corporations/unions with their pet politicians trying to shut down Uber for being unconventional in various ways. Uber is not harming consumers (in fact, they are better for consumers in many ways. For example due to the way that they work Uber drivers cannot discriminate against consumers by race, which is a large problem with regular taxis, at least in the States.), but Taxi companies/unions are wielding existing regulations, or even crafting new regulations, as weapons against what they perceive to be a threat to their business.
the street memorization example certainly strikes me as one with dual motivation. It doesn't benefit people who want to become Taxi drivers, but it certainly benefits drivers who are already drivers.
Aren't you leaving consumers out of the equation? After a decade of living in London, where Black Cab drivers are required to pass a stringent test of street knowledge (you can see would-be cab drivers zipping around London in the evenings on small motorcycles), I find it infuriating that American cab drivers frequently have no idea how to get me to my destination. As often as not I'm taking a cab because I don't know how to get where I'm going in the time available.
I have frequently raged against the taxi monopoly and in support of Uber, but as much because the licensed taxi drivers provide a crap service as anything else. If they were held to high standards by a regulator (as they are in some places) then I'd be a lot more supportive of restricted entry.
While currently Über is better for consumers, if they ignore regulations, they could go downhill quickly.
Also, what about the next Internet taxi startup, and the one after that? Ending up with many tiny Internet companies would end us up in the same situation as unregulated taxis, where people end up getting badly ripped off?
> obliging taxis to take you anywhere within the city limits
> must take an extensive test requiring memorisation of virtually every street
Both of these could be things the bigger taxi companies already did willingly, but then pushed for legislation when competing upstarts began undercutting them by offering service only to high traffic routes. If the big taxi companies already do it, they are unharmed by the legislation, but competing companies much spend resources to follow the new regulations.
>"When laws protecting Taxi monopolies claim to be for consumer protection, nobody here buys it."
If I rent a room from you, and stick my hand in your meat grinder, who gets sued? Are you personally insured against such events? Is your landlord insured against temporary tenants?
These aren't unsolvable problems, but are why the laws exist as they do. The hotel pays money for insurance, which protects the consumer. Most AirBnB hosts don't, and that gives them a competitive advantage achieved by someone along the line breaking a law.
I am not claiming that there are not legitimate issues with consumer protection to be considered. I merely find the idea that those laws which on the surface claim to be for that were drafted and enacted with that motivation to be incredibly unlikely. Hotel lobbyists and their politicians were not actually concerned for the consumer. They just claim that; what else could they possibly claim?
If Walmart could figure out a way to make a law banning local businesses look like it was for consumer protection, they would attempt it in a heartbeat. Consumer protection is how you sell corporate protection laws.
Personally, I find it no different than not being able to drive a car without insurance. That protects me and other drivers, and I don't think it's an "insurance lobby" agenda (although we battle with that too).
Fair point, but I think it is important to keep in mind that consumer protection laws often (Always? ..no, probably not always.) have ulterior motivation.
We have to be willing to consider putting things called "consumer protection laws" on the chopping block. Calling these things "consumer protection laws" affords them more protection than they may be deserving of, because who doesn't like protecting consumers? It just sounds like a great thing to do.
Calling your law a "consumer protection law" is (or rather, can be) basically a more advanced form of naming your law cleverly enough that it forms a "patriotic" acronym.
These laws don't require AirBnB hosts to purchase insurance. They outlaw renting out their homes. An argument based on the need for insurance doesn't justify the laws.
When laws protecting Taxi monopolies claim to be for consumer protection, nobody here buys it. Those laws are for the protection of Taxi companies and unions. These laws are more of the same.