Item — HN Reader

so Uber should be allow to break the laws to offer lower prices (which is not even true in rush hour), is this what you propose?

why not open restaurant chain recycling leftovers from other customers, storing all ingredients without fridge on floor of kitchen with some rats running around BUT hey I am American corporation bringing you cheap food and don't dare to tell me I am unfair competition compared to those dumb local restaurants meeting local hygiene rules

1 comments

If people buying the food like the food and know what they're getting, then why should government be involved? Let the people spend their money how they want.

If the Italian taxi industry is anything like the Venician gondoliers association, then this ruling has zero to do with safety and everything to do with protectionism.

That's a good point that I would agree with, however, I don't think it's applicable here. It's not just Uber customers that pay for the company's services - the Uber "taxis" also use infrastructure that Italian taxpayers have paid for(roads, taxi lanes, etc...I'm not familiar with the Italian situation). In that case, the Italian taxpayers would also have a say in the services provided.

But even ignoring that, there is a fundamental contention between state regulation and free markets. It's obvious that Europe in general prefers at least some level of state regulation, and is willing to suffer the market inefficiency for it. Whether that's "good" or "bad" is difficult to determine, but there's certainly a number of arguments that can be made in favor of state-wide rather than piecemeal regulation, e.g. the uneven information relationship between producer and consumer(I'm not really qualified to determine whether the product is safe), the unrealistic time investment for each consumer to verify with an independent agency whether a producer is up to their standards, and so on.

if you don't like the law then vote for someone who will change it, not just break it