I agree. It's only slightly less awful.
Define 'taxicab'. The problem is that the only plausible definition is circular: a taxi is a car whose owner holds a license to operate as a taxi. Hence my assertion that it's best not to try to construct an artificial distinction.
You could also argue that Uber doesn't arrange anything. The consumer does it himself, using the software provided by Uber.
Exactly: a guy in a wig is the final arbiter of what the law says. It's not supposed to be like that. It's supposed to be crystal clear, so that the man in the street can know what's legal and what isn't, by reading the appropriate statutes.
As you correctly pointed out, it just gets silly. When this kind of hairsplitting arises, it's a sure sign there's something fundamentally wrong - something logically wrong, not something that can be fixed by adding some more Latin words.
Certainly. But while arguing for the status quo, which imposes 'thus far and no farther' limits on development, you unwittingly retard all sorts of innovation that hasn't even happened yet.
I'll see if I can find it. IIRC it was quoted by Hernando de Soto (the economist).
Oh, they'd be absolutely right. Lawyers, social scientists, and economists. They'll be first against the wall come the revolution. And traffic wardens, obviously.
Yes, Metcalfe's law. So what's the problem? Amazon basically rule the world of e-books. I don't know of any company that even comes close. And because they have a monopoly, they do it really well. They have to do it well or they would cease to be a monopoly. Do you think Amazon should be legislated out of existence?
I'm not arguing that monopolies are wonderful. Just pointing out that there is no reason why they can't be. When network effects do exist, it often is better to have a monopoly running the show. Can you imagine if 100 different companies ran the train system? If you want to know what that looks like, look at US history. Or contemporary Britain.
The irony is that you're basically arguing Uber shouldn't be permitted to become a monopoly because they're challenging an existing monopoly, and that's, like, unfair.
So you're saying it's best to hobble such enterprises right from the get-go, so that we end up a bunch of horribly inefficient and unprofitable equivalents instead of just one good one?
You're not even following your own logic. The operators here are actually individuals, not Uber. You can't get more 'competitive' than that. The worst part of your argument is this: you're saying that billions of NT$ worth of dead capital - private cars - shouldn't be used to their full potential because it would hurt the government's taxi monopoly.
It seems to me you're just regurgitating the economists' (demonstrably false) argument that monopolies are invariably more inefficient than a 'competitive market'.