“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:
David Galland: Lessons from the Argentine
Fleeing Oppression
On Target Pressure Points: Educational Compliance
Why I Am an Anarcho-Capitalist
Bill Bonner: Has gold bottomed out?
Freedom and Servitude: Could You Have Answered This Question?
Trump hasn’t drained the swamp – he’s put the military in charge of it
Fraud: Medicare vs. Walmart
Bernanke "The Only Game in Town": Really?
Ron Paul: The IRS and Congress Both Hold Our Liberty in Contempt
Hiroshima: Lincoln's Legacy to Civilians
Mises' Answer to Would-Be Conspirators: You Will Lose
Exploding Sunni-Shia Conflict: Impact on Oil, Stocks, and More
Bill Bonner: Why do we have this credit-based money?
California, Here They Go