The "free market" is not something supported by our political parties, not even as propaganda. We have a great diversity of parties, from the Reorganized Movement of the Party of the Proletariat to the Nationalist Renovator Party, but they're all statists.
I agree that it's sheer insanity to prevent people from interacting consensually. It's ironic, considering drugs are decriminalized in Portugal. Free markets can't effectively exist as long as corporations as we know it exist. It's not as if there was a "free market" prior to this.
Regulation is also the reason why your cabby has mandatory rest times, which are strictly enforced.
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.
>it's sheer insanity to prevent people from interacting consensually
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.
Politicians decide what's illegal. Legislative decisions are frequently ethically repulsive if not crooked. It's usually circular logic to point to text on paper as justification of anything, especially in the context of ethics and discussion.
Corporations already decide what's illegal, largely, thanks to deficient systems. That revolving door exists. It's wide. The fact about law makers was worth mentioning because it often escapes people: pointing to a law, rather than thinking critically about the ethics of a law, is circular reasoning.
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.
Why don't we let citizens decide? Companies produce a product and if consumers don't want to use it, they don't. Uber irrefutably makes a city easier to navigate, and in most cities far cheaper. They've only succeeded in some cities by launching irrespective of what laws and modified to fit them, imagine if they responded and subsequently shut down when they received a cease and desist from SF in 2011 (prior to UberX launch). How ridiculous is it that they needed to let consumers (which the laws are supposed to help) experience the service 'illegally' for it to become accepted by those whom are supposed to be acting in their best interest.
Its not only customer convenience and service price which is at stake. Regulations exist as well for:
- protecting the workers providing the service
- protecting customers against information asymmetries (like lacking appropriate insurance on side of the provider).
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 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.
