
“But, they insisted, they weren’t arguing in favor of a monopoly in the ferry business — no, they pointed out that their permit actually required them to run more frequent ferries if demand so warranted. Therefore there was no danger of a monopoly, because they could be trusted to operate more ferries if need be. This proved that there was no necessity for a new ferry company to compete against them, and that the government should not have granted the second company a permit. This is precisely the same argument made today by existing taxi monopolists who oppose the introduction of Uber and other ride-sharing companies.”
http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/detail/uber-vs-the-state-1851-edition
Related posts:
Sticky Thoughts: The Market, Not The Government, Gave Us Super Glue
1971: The Year That Nixon Chose Gold Over Paper
John Hussman: Do the Lessons of History No Longer Apply?
Elite Description Problem - Why the System Needs a Full Explanation
Judge Agrees: The Constitution Is a Sham
How Bitcoin solved my startup's international banking problem
Judge Napolitano: President Obama Puts Politics Above the Rule of Law
Thoughts from the Frontline: The Age of Transformation
Scheuer: Ten questions worth pondering on Obama, Syria, and Interventionism
The Myth of the Free-Market American Health Care System [2012]
Meet “The People’s Court”
Paul Craig Roberts: Attack On Sovereignty
Julian Assange on Google and the NSA: Who’s holding the ‘sh*t-bag’ now?
Are You Already in Jail?
Qatar: Rich and Dangerous