> and surely you do not dispute that if the market demands a 'safer' alternative, one will emerge

I absolutely dispute that! There's a pretty large barrier to entry in the existing market already (network effect is pretty significant for this market), and a new entrant that's doing full background checks while nobody else is is not going to be able to compete with the already extremely aggressive pricing the existing players are using.

> So i'm really not sure what the argument is for government stepping in.

For the public good! You're being intentionally obtuse here. You're ignoring the arguments in favor, choosing to respond to a few specific sentences with claims of huge economic and social cost with no evidence, and then pretending that you've addressed the argument. You haven't.

Also, if you think this is a case of the government stepping in where they haven't before, you're completely wrong. Licensed cab drivers already get background checks, generally including fingerprints[1]. As Uber and Lyft and others replace licensed taxis, we're losing regulation. If you're so dead set against background checks, why weren't you complaining about taxi companies before Uber came along?

[1] I checked my local laws and they definitely do background checks, and this article says that taxi licensing commissions typically use a service called Live Scan that uses fingerprints: http://www.fastcompany.com/3050172/tech-forecast/the-truth-a...

> Uber doesn't pay the cost, people that use Uber do.

Not really. Uber and Lyft already drove prices extremely low, both in an attempt to undercut each other and to undercut taxis. If they raise prices they'll start to lose business back to the taxi companies and elsewhere. Uber at least would likely just absorb the cost for now while they continue to try and achieve market dominance. And if they ever do achieve market dominance, you know they're going to raise their prices regardless of whether or not they're doing background checks.

> And regulation like this actually cements Uber's dominance in the market place, because it creates a barrier to new entrants. If you are a 60 billion dollar company, spending 10 million a year on compliance is no big deal. If you are a startup, it will kill you. That is the true cost of this sort of regulation.

Bullshit. If you're a startup, you're not paying 10 million a year on compliance. The cost for background checks scales linearly with the number of people being checked, so a startup that has a small fleet is going to pay significantly less than Uber. Besides, any new entrant to the carpooling market is going to have to be backed by serious money already to even get a toehold, adding background checks isn't going to change that.

> Take a look at the taxi industry. The taxi industry is terrible precisely because of this sort of regulation protecting incumbents by keeping out new entrants. Anyone looking to start a taxi business needs to buy medallions which cost approximately a million dollars each (before Uber showing up made them virtually worthless).

The taxi industry is not terrible because of background checks. That's a ridiculous claim. Equating doing background checks with the medallion system also makes no sense at all. You seem to be assuming that all forms of government regulation are identical and therefore any regulation that seems bad means all regulation is bad, and that's nonsense.

> If that were indeed true that people didn't feel safe getting in an Uber, then they wouldn't want to ride in an Uber. Uber's ridership would drop and they would feel compelled to do something about it - all on their own.

No they wouldn't, because there's no competitor that's any better. The taxi industry is not doing its job well, which is precisely why Uber and Lyft and others were able to work. And AFAIK none of the carpooling companies do fingerprint background checks. So what this means is that someone who doesn't feel safe getting into an Uber late at night also won't feel safe getting into a Lyft, or a car from any other company in this market that still exists.