Source link: http://archive.mises.org/17644/freedom-or-regulation-in-taxi-services/
Freedom or Regulation in Taxi Services?
Previous post: Apparently people would rather stay poor
Next post: Recent C4SIF IP Posts
The Ludwig von Mises Institute
Tu Ne Cede Malis
Advancing the Scholarship of Liberty in the Tradition of the Austrian School
{ 18 comments }
Thank you and God bless you, Reason tv.
Government scum.
Newsflash from Brazil: 2 days ago, Congress approved a law regulating taxi services in the country. Up to them, taxi services were regulated by the municipalities and individual states. According to the proverbial “government official”, [i]this law provides for the standardization of taxi services throughout the country. This will bring about fairer prices and better service for customers[/i] (I paraphrase).
The upcoming Soccer World Cup in 2014 and Olympic Games in 2016 are the perfect excuse for imposing all these rules… I heard that taxi drivers would be mandated to learn a foreign language, but I didn’t find anything about that in the law.
I bet taxi drivers are thrilled: the law mandates taxi drivers to “contribute” to Social Security, attend refresher first aid and basic mechanics courses, among other rules.
You should see PEC 190. It basically abolishes what little federalism exists in law and unifies all laws under a single federal code
Brazil is a federal republic only in name. It is quite clear that Brazilians didn’t know what we “wanted” so we ended up with a system that uses the words of the American State with the structure of the French State.
The Brazilian constitution is a joke – and its punch line is that people actually believe that simply because someone 20 years ago wrote some rules in a piece of paper, those rules are magically just, moral, and correct.
@augusto
The only things the Soccer World Cup in South Africa has left us with are vacant stadiums, a white elephant airport train and toll booths springing up all over our highways. Good luck to Brazil.
Oh, no, but you see, it will be different this time.
Surely Brazilian planners are better than South African planners.
Also, the Brazilian Constitution says that the practice of sports is a duty of the State and a right of individuals. So really, the State has no choice but to build stadiums and whatnot. People would certainly rebel if the State sat on its hands and did nothing to ensure Brazilians can play games.
(no, I am not kidding, it’s right here: Article 217. It is the duty of the State to foster the practice of formal and informal sports, as a right of each individual…” (Constitution of the Federal Republic of Brazil/1988 : http://www.v-brazil.com/government/laws/titleVIII.html)
“Oh, no, but you see, it will be different this time.”
Heh, perfectly stated.
And the standard refrain for every new election, new plan, new law, new world….
Wow. I saw a similar video about a price floor that the city of Nashville was trying to implement on cab drivers over on Greg Mankiw’s blog a couple months ago.
This video does a great job showing that the battle isn’t between “economic freedom” and “regulation,” but human freedom and coercion.
I generally agree with you, although there was a smattering of utilitarian arguments thrown in, which deflates the heart and soul of the issue. I suppose some fodder for the ever apologizing “yeah, but…” crowd.
Nevertheless, the crux is your statement.
You do have to read into it. It isn’t the video that demonstrates the “human freedom vs. coercion” aspect but the situation itself.
Medallion Bill Is Corrupt And Must Be Defeated!
Protection against the corruption of free entry into the market! A blatent lie. Livelihoods are being sacrificed to line the pockets of crooks.
That is like the claims of Ben Bernanke, that auditing the Federal Reserve interferes with its ability to be independent of political corruption! A blatent lie. The value of the dollar is being destroyed in an attempt to prop up the unConstitutional coup.
END THE FED and kill the Medallion Bill!
It is a blatant lie and is destroying the dollar faster than we can say European Euro. This is going to destroy the livelihoods of people from older generations too.
Why must the government intervene to create an artificial scarcity in the offer of taxi business ?
There is something I don’t understand. The government is supposed to cater to the voting masses. The broader it’s base, the more votes it will get. It so happens that there are more people asking for taxi services than there are people offering taxi services.
Therefore, there should be a broader base of voting customers than voting drivers. The government would earn more votes by pleasing to the traveling public than the cab drivers.
So why did it enact laws catering to a restricted clientèle ?
I thought that democracy was a game of numbers, of tyranny of the majority. We see in those special privileges that it’s getting more and more the tyranny of the minority.
I don’t understand. So a small group uniting together has more voice than a large, disunited population ?
Windows Hater,
Politicians do not cater for the masses in abstract. They cater for interest groups. The interests of the bureaucrats who would lose their jobs should these ridiculous regulations were abolished are very clear; the interests of the taxi drivers who already have their medallions are also very clear.
If you abolish that law that limits the number of taxis, the taxi driver KNOWS he will make less money at the end of the month. But the potential customer of the taxi DOESN’T KNOW he’s being deprived of cheaper taxis.
The second point is taxi drivers are organized: their have an association, they have their monthly bulletins, they have their representative in Congress or in City Council. In a very real sense, they have captured the State, and they aren’t going to let it go.
But on the other hand, the Government can’t simply go and protect these petty interests. That is why when these subjects are discussed, politicians must always and everywhere appeal to the notion that these laws and regulations benefit the public at large.
You will always hear this: Yes, we limit the number of taxis, but we ensure that the public has a quality service. All licenced taxis must meet minimum requirements, such as size of the car, driver’s knowledge of the city’s streets, and so on.
So, really, it’s good for everyone, you see?
[i]I don’t understand. So a small group uniting together has more voice than a large, disunited population ?[/i]
Precisely.
Windows Hater
I thought that democracy was a game of numbers, of tyranny of the majority.
The misperception of many is that democracy is based on a majority vote.
At best, one third of the population votes in a national election. Henceforth, from a democratic perspective, the country is ruled by one-sixth of the population. I imagine state/local voting participation is statistically worse.
Therefore, there is no body politic. Most people are anarchists (unknowingly) and concern themselves with the survival of themselves, family, and friends…as it should be.
Beyond that, most politicians sell out their core constituencies once elected. (e.g. recently-Obama and social security). Remember politics is about money and power…not stewardship.
The relationship of gov. to the people is parasitical.
Note:
What’s interesting is the origin of this taxi law is from a business and the gov. is just a means to an end…in this case eliminating competition. I have come to believe that most laws are created this way.
So who do we blame in these situations… the system (gov.) or those who choose to use it to their advantage?
LimoNet limousine has been serving New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania airports for many years, with countless satisfied individual and corporate clients.
Comments on this entry are closed.