“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:
Obama Agrees with Hitler on Schooling Children
Taxation and Trading on Foreign Markets
Bill Bonner: Is the Greatest Bull Market of All Time Now Over?
Is the U.S. Producing Democracies?
Dr. Grinspoon's Kind War: Interview With a Renegade Marijuana Proponent
MIT Economist’s Audacious Paper on Economic Climate Models
Minority Report: Fiction Has Become Reality
Americans – Like Nazi Germans – Don’t Notice that All of Our Rights Are Slipping Away
Eleven Years after 9/11, Guantánamo Is a Political Prison
Teenage Dystopia: The Cycle of Oppression and Resistance
Mike Gogulski: We Need Freedom of Speech in our Financial Commerce
Support the Egyptian Uprising and Go to Jail
4 Things You Should Know About Mass Incarceration
The Only Legal Way to Escape US Taxes Besides Death and Renunciation
Jeffrey Tucker: How the Internet Saved Civilization