Whether or not it is a luxury, the existence of unlicensed cabs is proof of unmet demand. They indicate either that licensed cabs are too expensive, or that they aren't in high enough supply.
It only indicates that drunk people would rather not wait five minutes for a cab they call (for the same price), but instead jump into whatever car is there. That choice has been taken away because people were getting hurt.
Painting all users of unlicensed cabs as "drunk people" may be a helpful way of coloring your argument, but nonetheless if the only advantage unlicensed cabs is speed of arrival, then that is still providing for unmet demand.
If the risk of these services outweighed the time advantage, people wouldn't be using them. Moreover, eliminating the choice doesn't necessarily stop them from being victimized. Whatever form of of transportation they may use instead, such as walking, could involve similar violent crimes, which wouldn't make it into your official statistics for taxi-related crimes.
"Painting all users of unlicensed cabs as "drunk people" may be a helpful way of coloring your argument, but nonetheless if the only advantage unlicensed cabs is speed of arrival, then that is still providing for unmet demand."
They were drunk people, that's largely who used them. I have been one.
If the risk of these services outweighed the time advantage, people wouldn't be using them.
False, this assumes perfect information is available and that people always make good choices. These things are not true.
Moreover, eliminating the choice doesn't necessarily stop them from being victimized.
It makes it less likely, as the guys aren't hanging out looking for business outside pubs and clubs any more, and these drunk people (amongst whom I have been counted many times) call a registered and regulated company.
Whatever form of of transportation they may use instead, such as walking, could involve similar violent crimes, which wouldn't make it into your official statistics for taxi-related crimes.
Entirely possible, but public transport in London is pretty safe and as has been mentioned, licensed cabs are not generally more expensive, they just take a few minutes to arrive.
I don't assume perfect information; all economic activity bears risk and your choices are guided by your risk tolerance. Sometimes, you make a bad choice and suffer the consequences. Eliminating choices doesn't eliminate those consequences, it simply forces you to either adjust your risk tolerance against your will or engage in even riskier activity.
You agree, then, that awful crimes could still be occurring elsewhere but are impossible to determine whether they would have occurred in taxis prior to regulation. It is thus impossible to determine if those alternatives are actually safer, and even if they are, safety may not be the only priority people have. It is entirely based on your own subjective risk tolerance.
I don't assume perfect information; all economic activity bears risk and your choices are guided by your risk tolerance.
Not when you're drunk they aren't. It's arguable that a choice was being made. Secondly, if there isn't perfect information, it's not possible to accurately gauge the risk.
Sometimes, you make a bad choice and suffer the consequences.
And we don't, as a society, think it's reasonable to have people on edge about making the right choices all the time, so we seek to mitigate those consequences as a group.
"Eliminating choices doesn't eliminate those consequences, it simply forces you to either adjust your risk tolerance against your will or engage in even riskier activity."
OK, cool, now how terribly awful a transgression is it to force (OMG!) people to call a cab instead of stumbling into one? It's not. And that's what people do now.
And no, I don't agree with your estimation. It is not impossible to tell if crime rate has dropped, it is not likely that crimes are going unreported due to the taxi 'black market' and it's relatively easy to determine if the alternatives are safer, and they have been.
"safety may not be the only priority people have. It is entirely based on your own subjective risk tolerance."
Sure, we can agree on that, and democratically we as a society have agreed that some risks are intolerable even if (gasp!) some people have to get the bus or pay an extra 50p for a cab. So we make laws.
Come on, stop messing around, you know this is the bit you really object to, society deciding amongst itself that your unregulated business is not wanted and cannot be run here. Yes, it is the government (or the people) inflicting their will on others in the interests of safety and progress. You'll never persuade me this is wrong.
Perfect information is impossible, and the information held by an elected body is infinitely less perfect. There is no way they can take into account the subjective values of each person better than the people themselves, so it will always tend to be a majority forcing its preferences on a minority.
I make it no secret that I object to this. I think it is unethical and I certainly agree that I won't persuade you on that point. However to some degree I think you do see a problem with it, which is why you try to downplay the costs by pointing out that it is "only" 50p or "only" 5 minutes. If forcing your risk tolerance on others is indeed ethical, this psychological hedging wouldn't be necessary.
No I have no problem with it, the costs are miniscule compared to the results. There is no hedging here unless you mean a rational weighing up of costs and benefits.
It is entirely ethical to rule out the worse risks in society, because fundamentally it makes it better for all of us. Particularly the vulnerable in whatever form they take. Not everyone is even capable of rational risk assessment, and many of the rest of us don't want to have to be constantly on guard. I'm sorry if this offends you.
I'm glad you admit the outcome doesn't matter to you, only your ideals.
