>> That's quite an assumption. Care to back that up somehow?

Well there was, for instance, the rule brought in a few years ago in London that minicabs have to be called from a registered business, they can't just hang around soliciting for business. This was in direct response to women being picked up by unregistered drivers and raped. That's just one example of regulation that has sprung up to protect the public.

>> Consider that free(er) competition results in quality increasing and prices decreasing.

It can result in a race to the bottom just as easily.

>> That's how it works when providers have to please their customers more than their competitors. It's extremely simple, and axiomatic.

Pleasing customers is not the be-all and end-all of ... anything really. I like to use the example of hygiene ratings and checks in restaurants. This is a government function that makes sure people don't die. It is absolutely not good enough to leave this to the market. It is absolutely not good enough to say that if people get poisoned then the business will fail. Firstly because people already got poisoned and secondly because we have a whole heap of history to show us that dodgy operators keep going!

>> So when you see that Uber is just one service provider in the market for paid transportation, how do you think it could possibly be better for us that "regulations" prevent Uber from operating, i.e. competing with government-approved taxi services?

I'm not necessarily taking on Uber specifically, but your underlying point that all regulation is bad. I gave an example above of a regulation that came in for a reason. If Uber are falling foul of regulations like this then as I said, it's a good reason to take a look at what might be wrong with the regulations, not throw them out completely just to facilitate the new cab company in town.

>> It's like, you could have some.. rules about how to behave in rental apartments, and they could even be included in the contracts!

Right, behave or we won't rent to you next time! Never mind that this time they caused hell to the other residents. And the next group do it too. But it's OK because you won't rent to them next time either. And never mind that having a never-ending stream of new people in and out of the building fundamentally changes the nature of a residential block. No, fuck everyone else and what they wanted out of a place to live.

This is the very kernel of the problem - the negative externalities are ignored. That's why prices are cheaper, that's why there are problems with these businesses flouting laws that protect people.

I also find it very interesting that you chose to say this -

"That's how it works when providers have to please their customers more than their competitors."

You clearly have a preconceived notion that all opposition to these sorts of businesses comes from their competitors. It does not. I don't give a shit about taxi medallions or whether hotels don't like the competition.

I do give a shit about consumer protection, fire regulations, safety, hygiene requirements, workers rights and many, many other things that have been hard won over many, many years. Things we're not all clamouring to discard for a slightly cheaper cab ride or bed to sleep in.