> "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.
I believe laws protecting Taxis are for consumer protection, and so are the hotel laws.
While I do not claim these laws are perfect, I believe they continue to serve an important real purpose.