
“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:
The Voters Who Stayed Home
The Largest Gold Share Rise of All Time
Prohibition Caused the Greatness of Gatsby
Don't Eat These, Ever: What’s in Your Condiments?
Michael Reichert and the Road Pirates of Collinsville, Illinois
Doug Casey on Opting-Out
A $100k earner gets to keep $99k in Singapore but $57k in San Francisco
This failure rate will shock you
The case against cronies: Libertarians must stand up to corporate greed
Bill Bonner: When the Feds Tell You Bend Over…
Hayek to Satoshi and Beyond
Kill Lists Will Continue
Why I Bought One Bitcoin
Iraq’s pain has only intensified since 2003
John Hussman: The Two Pillars of Full-Cycle Investing