Cab Laws Favor Existing Firms, But That's OK, Says Court

(Page 2 of 2)

But Robert McNamara, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit law firm that litigates taxi cases, argues that barring new competition does not yield better quality.

“When consumers have a choice to go to a different service provider, service improves,” McNamara told Watchdog. “The fact that many local transportation regulators disregard this basic truth in order to protect the economic interests of entrenched businesses is a tragedy for consumers and entrepreneurs alike.”

This article originally appeared at

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    We have the right to use government to eliminate our competition.

    /Cab Co

    We have the power to buy your vote.

    /Top Men

    A marriage made in hell.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Canadian teen convicted of 'sexting' photos of boyfriend's ex

    Using child pornography laws to prosecute a teen having a teenage lovers spat, who used a pic that she stole from the "victim's" ex/her current boyfriend.

    The number of potential arguments packed into this one story are limitless.

  • ||

    Does Canada have a sex offenders registry? Is the 17 year old going to have to join it? Because that would be nuts.

    In any case, stealing the photos and disseminating them is most certainly a punishable offense but I'm thinking something like community service or 30 days in the clink in addition to compensation for the victim's lost reputation.

  • GW||

    What's interesting about these sorts of cases is that typically, the person who took the photos would be guilty of child porn what happens when the photos were taken by the subject of the photo themselves?

  • Francisco d Anconia||


    And why wasn't the boyfriend brought up on child pornography charges.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    ? not .

  • Agammamon||

    And the other person who received the pictures.

    What's wrong with Canada, this is, like, a three-fer.

  • Free Society||

    IF I remember right, there was a teenager convicted of distribution of child porn so sending naked photos of herself to boyfriend(s).

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I think it's these types questions that makes laws prohibiting the viewing or possession of an image ridiculous.

    The purpose behind such laws is to prevent adults from sexually exploiting children. I don't see that happening here.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Unfortunately, that precedent has already been set.

    [In the majority opinion, Justice] Wolf speculated that Amber and Jeremy could have ended up selling the photos to child pornographers ("one motive for revealing the photos is profit") or showing the images to their friends. He claimed that Amber had neither the "foresight or maturity" to make a reasonable estimation of the risks on her own. And he said that transferring the images from a digital camera to a PC created innumerable problems: "The two computers (can) be hacked."
  • Anonymous Coward||

    After the verdict was announced, the accused's lawyer, Christopher Mackie, said the charge does not fit the crime.

    "These child pornography laws were intended to protect children, not to persecute them, and again it seems the criminal justice system, it's a heavy hammer to be using," he said.

    Unintended consequences are not unforeseeable consequences.

  • robc||

    There should be some sort of law made out of some sort of metal to describe that. The Tungsten Law or something.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Tungsten's pretty brittle.

  • pan fried wylie||

    saying that while the rules promote favoritism they aren’t unconstitutional.

    I missed the part that enumerates the power of promotion of favored organizations. Promotion of General Welfare, maybe, but the "general" qualifier there kinda excludes one-sided deals like cabbies benefiting at the expense of other businesses and the General (there's that word again) Public.

  • GW||

    Yeah, and there is that whole "equal protection" clause, which negates the logic of favoritism being constitutional altogether.

  • pan fried wylie||

    As long as we don't violate people's equality because of the color of their skin or based on who they fuck, then the violation is equal, and protected by the constitution.

    Now, where's my supreme court seat, bitches.

    *mic drop*

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I call into question your wise Latina credentials.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    State and local governments aren't subject to enumerated powers, that's only the federal govt (and only outside of DC in that case).

  • Agammamon||

    State and local governments are not subject to the enumerated and limited powers clause of the *constitution*, that does not mean their powers are without limit and that they can do anything.

    They're still subject to the limits of state constitutions, *and* still can't violate the civil rights of their citizens.

    Means the state can't dump the equal protection clause or the no bills of attainder bit.

  • Acosmist||

    So you agree with tulpa.

  • cavalier973||


    If you like the song "Royals" by Lorde, you'll love the parody.

  • Redmanfms||

    Somebody posted the song here a few months ago. I liked the album enough that I actually bought it, her EP isn't bad either. She has potential.

    And that video is pretty damned funny.

  • playa manhattan||

    The lobster suicide was a nice touch.

  • prolefeed||

    Can't stand that fn song -- it was cool the first time, then =p =p =p

  • Anomalous||

    This is a good one too.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Panel of government shysters supports government corruption to favor rent-seekers. Film at 11.


  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Just saw Jerry Seinfeld featuring Uber on his internet show. As Jerry goes, so goes Los Angeles.

  • bassjoe||

    City council members say there is no demand for new taxi services. During litigation, council members Melba Curls and Russell Johnson testified they had received no complaints about a lack of cabs in the city.
    This is completely besides the point.

    The vast majority of people don't really understand the taxi permitting process and how city councils across the country essentially support monopolistic cartels over the needs of their residents. When the residents receive poor service, they blame the taxi company and rarely complain to their elected representative, as they don't realize complaining to their elected representatives could be vastly more effective.

    For a politician, it's a perfect system. They create a system that encourages cartels, receive campaign contributions and junkets from the cartels to keep the system in place, and are effectively shielded from the voters' wrath when the cartels provide poor service.

  • GW||

    I bet they've had complaints about needing more restaurants either, but I bet they don't worry about approving new restaurants....

  • GW||

    I bet they've not had complaints about needing more restaurants either, but I bet they don't worry about approving new restaurants....

  • GW||

    I bet they've not had complaints about needing more restaurants either, but I bet they don't worry about approving new restaurants....

  • GW||

    I bet they've not had complaints about needing more restaurants either, but I bet they don't worry about approving new restaurants....

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    A four-fer at 3. That may be a new squirrel record.

    Little bastards.

  • GW||

    Shit. The squirrels are really GIFing out on us...

  • Irish||

    OH MY GOD!

    Crazy right winger Ted Cruz turns Harvard Law Review into right wing rag by writing a reasonable and scholarly article!

    This somewhat esoteric legal argument has incited The Daily Beast to suggest that Cruz is using a “dog whistle” to influence the conspiracy theory addled far right in a January 11, 2014 essay. It is one thing, the online magazine states, for someone like Cruz to tell people that the United Nations is threatening to take away peoples’ guns or enact some kind of climate change tax on the Rush Limbaugh Show or in a conservative magazine. It is incredibly sneaky of the senator to suggest that treaties could be used to violate states rights in the pages of a staid, establishment law journal.

    What's hilarious is that Ted Cruz actually wrote the article about an actual case in which someone was tried and convicted under UN chemical weapons treaties when she tried to poison her lover.

    In other words, Cruz is using an example where it's already been proven that people are going to jail over UN treaties rather than sovereign law. How dare this evil right winger imply that something which is already happening might happen in the future?

  • ||

    The Daily Beast to suggest that Cruz is using a “dog whistle” to influence the conspiracy theory addled far right

    And who is actually, instantly responding to this "dog whistle"?

    What's that word again? Oh yeah: PROJECTION.

  • bassjoe||

    meh, partisans always react to "dog whistles" or whatever the heck you want to call them. It's not just an affliction of the right or left.

  • robc||

    Ive said it before but anyone who uses the phrase "dog whistle" cant be taken seriously.

  • Ted S.||

    If you can hear the dog whistle, you must be a dog.

  • ||

    to tell people that the United Nations is threatening to take away peoples’ guns or enact some kind of climate change tax

    The UN isn't trying to take away peoples guns and institute a climate change tax?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    It is incredibly sneaky of the senator to suggest that treaties could be used to violate states rights in the pages of a staid, establishment law journal.

    How dare Ted Cruz sully the hallowed pages of the Harvard Law Review with an ACTUAL FACT PATTERN! And Footnotes! And Citations!

    We need an example of a real Harvard Law Review article is supposed to be written. Somebody pull up some of Barack Obama's scholarly...oops.

  • David Wall||


    Thanks for this link. Pretty interesting. Cruz' concomitant policies stemming from his religiosity are abhorrent, but the guy is brilliant. Just don't believe that a person so smart can really believe in all the superstitious nonsense he spouts.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    Not to defend theism (I'm an atheist myself), but history shows that being a theist and being intelligent aren't mutually exclusive. Galileo, Mendel, and Copernicus, and Isaac Newton, for instance, were all very religious. And Newton believed in some very nutty things, like alchemy, and spent a great deal of his time trying to find the philosopher's stone (though, to be fair, alchemy was fairly mainstream at the time).

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Don't forget the non-Christians (Muhammad al-Khawarizmi, a Persian Muslim and inventor of algebra and trigonometry, or introducer to the West, depending on whether or not you believe he cribbed it from the Hindus).

  • prolefeed||

    Just don't believe that a person so smart can really believe in all the superstitious nonsense he spouts.

    I know lots of otherwise, reasonable Mormons who believe crazy-ass whacky stuff because The Prophet Said So TM.

    It's called either compartmentalization or starting from a false premise.

  • Agammamon||

    Looking at set of both the politically left and right, its pretty obvious that some very smart people can believe in all sorts of bullshit if it serves their interests, no matter how badly reality contradicts.

  • Warrren||

    This is why there's no point to reading anything that comes from the left.

    If it's not outright lies, their analysis will be way off and or shallow and thus their conclusions are worthless.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I know H+R is all about selective reading of the Constitution, but treaties (even those related to the UN) are the law of the land. (Art VI, Clause 2)

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

  • Agammamon||

    And judicial opinion is pretty clear that you can not get around constitutional niceties by crafting a treaty with a foreign power.

    All that means is, if a treaty violates your constitutional rights *or the enumerated and limited powers the federal government has* then that treaty is voided.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Which judicial opinion?

    In Missouri v. Holland, the issue was a migratory bird treaty with the UK that was made in response to a previous SCOTUS striking down a federal migratory bird law. It was an explicit attempt of an end run around the enumerated powers doctrine and the Tenth Amendment, and SCOTUS upheld it.

    Reid v. Covert dealt not with the enumerated powers doctrine but with the prohibitions on govt acts found in the 5th and 6th amendments. Very different.

  • ||

    Sooo what evolutionary reason is there that dogs poop on a north-south axis?

  • cavalier973||

    Dogs that poop on a north-south axis have selective advantage over dogs that poop east-to-west or west-to-east. Bitches love a north-south mate.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    "But Peter Klein, an economist at the University of Missouri, said city council members and transportation planners are not in the best position to know how much demand there is."

    That's certainly arguable, but you'll never convince the city-panners and politicians of it.

  • MichalaMatanzagyn||

    my co-worker's aunt makes 67 dollars/hr on the internet. She has been out of a job for 9 months but last month her pay check was 18639 dollars just working on the internet for a few hours. browse this site


  • Vampire||

    Imagine if individuals had a choice between a racist state bus company and a non racist bus company. Rosa Parks and many individuals would have rode a competing bus company that offered the best service, and subsequently rewarding good service with their media of exchange and the subsequent individual regulation through it.

    The lack of competition IE, the monopoly maintained by the state bus company didn't result in better service. It resulted in a despicable racist bus line run by the state that forced individuals to fund it against their will through extortion (taxation). Competition could have driven out a racist bus line, and free individuals wouldn't be forced to subsidize such nonsense.

    Why individuals would rather have waited on the sluggishness of the state to eradicate the racism and economic problems it ( the state) creates is befuddling. Free individuals are able to fight against these things immediately, instead of having to wait years to elect individuals hoping not to be subjected to theft, etc.

    Though not the same as the aforementioned, limiting "licenses" (or even requiring them in the fist place) will lead to less choice, and service that is less effective and more expensive.

  • Rhywun||

    Montgomery buses were run by a private - not state - monopoly, according to Wikipedia.

  • Vampire||

    Thanks for the info on Rosa Parks bus. State law allowed segregation on bus lines in Alabama (and many other places) and Rosa Parks was arrested by the police for violating a "law" that should have never been. Even though the bus company was private, the state enforced segregation as it was the law. The same went for all the Jim Crowe laws that were created by and enforced by the government.

    It is up to free indicidus to eradicate such law, and they can do so far easier without politicians enforcing law antithetical to natural rights and also threatening them with violence.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Actually she didn't even violate the law. She was sitting in the "colored" section and the bus driver told her to move halfway through the trip, because the white seats were full, and he didn't want white people having to stand while blacks sat.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Even unregulated private buses in medium sized and smaller cities are naturally going to tend toward monopolies, because there isn't enough business for two firms.

    Same reason most small towns only have one movie theater, despite very little regulation of that industry.

  • ||

    Wish I'd seen this earlier. No dumbass, one business operating in an area does not equal a monopoly.

  • Brucehy||

    my best friend's half-sister makes $71/hour on the internet. She has been fired for nine months but last month her paycheck was $13504 just working on the internet for a few hours. check

    ======== WWW.CASH46.COM

  • 619 Limo||

    nice try...

  • SusanJWong||

    my best friend's mother makes $82 hourly on the internet. She has been fired for 10 months but last month her paycheck was $14496 just working on the internet for a few hours. find out this here

  • Stevecsd||

    In Nashville, last year a new company tried to offer limo rides from the airport and around town for a $25 flat fee. The City forced a minimum charge of $45, which effectively put them out of business. This was nothing but a sop to the existing entrenched cab companies.

    Recently UBER & Lyft have begun marketing in Nashville. Last week the city reduced the minimum fee to $9.75. The limo company has restarted again, now that they can charge what they think will work for them. New technology may force some competition and break up the taxi cartels.

  • SuperOBD SKP-100||

    Good post.


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties