Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

utamog t1_ixxsxb2 wrote

Then you are not a libertarian capitalist at all. Literally bemoaning free competition at the expense of consumer choice.

1

antiqueboi t1_iy08ee0 wrote

yes but the government created the artificial restriction in the first place. there never should have been medallions to begin with.

0

antiqueboi t1_iy08n2i wrote

it would be like the government saying you need to pay them 1 million for a license to do something then one day they are like "oh nvm you don't need a license anymore anyone can do it"

0

utamog t1_iy09xoc wrote

It’s not very libertarian capitalist to defend the establishment of fucked and corrupt legacy government bodies at the expense of consumer choice. Have your opinion but don’t claim you are libertarian.

1

utamog t1_iy09ybb wrote

It’s not very libertarian capitalist to defend the establishment of fucked and corrupt legacy government bodies at the expense of consumer choice. Have your opinion but don’t claim you are libertarian as they come, that’s just logically incompatible.

1

antiqueboi t1_iy0grew wrote

im not defending the establishment, im saying that the drivers should be able to sue the city for losses incurred due to allowing people to violate the license requirement.

0

utamog t1_iy0hagk wrote

No you literally said that Uber drivers shouldn’t be allowed to operate as ordinary taxi drivers. You just are not a real libertarian, this performative shit is dumb.

1

antiqueboi t1_iy2lf81 wrote

under the system the government created they should not. why would anyone be a taxi driver and pay 800k, when they can bypass all that by just doing uber or lyft?

the solution is for the government to buy back medallions from the drivers for whatever they paid for them. then not regulate taxis or limos at all.

1