
“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:
Profiles in Pork
The JFK Assassination Marked the End of the American Republic
The future of work: on to a freelance model?
Will Grigg: Prison Profiteers
Oligarchies Masquerading as Democracies
Ralph Nader: Stopping Barry O'Bomber's Rush to War
America’s Great Depression Quote of the Week: A Visit with ‘Dr. Hoover’
On Target Pressure Points: Educational Compliance
Japan's Debt Problem Visualized
The Iraq War: 10 Years Later
Downside Resilience, Anyone?
Wendy McElroy: America’s Electronic Police State
How to Survive When Prices Double Every Day and a Half
What If the U.S. Didn’t Have a Military Establishment?
What Could Go Wrong with the Housing Recovery in 2013? Plenty.