> Or maybe we'll learn that governmental regulation isn't the only form of regulation.
It is so by definition.
>(reputation, repeat business, competitors, etc.)
Those are not regulatory mechanisms. Those are mechanisms that enhance competition. Competitive markets usually need less regulation.
But none of those things you mentioned is going to get Uber drivers to buy the insurance they need to be covered against any harm they could possibly inflict on the people they are ferrying around.
What will happen is that eventually some gruesome accident will lead to a high profile court case and then finally governments will decide that yes, Uber drivers need to buy commercial insurance.
> What will happen is that eventually some gruesome accident will lead to a high profile court case and then finally governments will decide that yes, Uber drivers need to buy commercial insurance.
I don't understand where this misconception keeps coming from. Uber holds commercial insurance specifically covering passengers being ferried around by their UberX contractors.
Based on what definition? It's only common convention that has associated regulation with government action.
Competition is a regulating force. It's a force outside of oneself that governs and influences how they behave. I would love to charge excessive prices and line my own pockets with profits, but I do not. Why not? Excessive prices are consistent with what I want, but my customers will leave and I'll wind up with no profit, so I govern my behavior accordingly.
Based on the definition of the word "regulations". Not "regulating force", "regulations", as in a government telling you what you can or cannot do.
But anyway; competition on the market is a very powerful regulating force. It happily regulates pain, death and suffering into the work. I'm less worried about us having to re-learn the reasons for taxi laws, per 'panzagl. I'm worried that, as evidenced by people saying things like you did, that we'll have to re-learn the lessons of the Industrial Revolution. There is a reason we regulate markets, why we have employment and safety laws. Our forefathers paid in blood and tears to bring them into existence, so that most of us can enjoy working in safe environment and reasonable hours. The default, if you let competition have its way unchecked, is sweatshops.
The sweatshops claim is ridiculous. Tough industrial working conditions are needed to grow into a developed country, but it's misguided to attribute the improvements in working condition to regulations. Regulations tend to lag industry developments. Once companies like Wal-Mart are near paying their employees $10/hr (or can reasonably do so on a profitable basis), then they step in and lobby for an increase to the minimum wage. This works out nice because it (a) doesn't impact the companies already complying with proposed regulations and (b) it can be devastating to competitors who aren't. It's a one-two punch that advances the interests of particular companies and is easily mistaken by the general public as social progress.
It is so by definition.
>(reputation, repeat business, competitors, etc.)
Those are not regulatory mechanisms. Those are mechanisms that enhance competition. Competitive markets usually need less regulation.
But none of those things you mentioned is going to get Uber drivers to buy the insurance they need to be covered against any harm they could possibly inflict on the people they are ferrying around.
What will happen is that eventually some gruesome accident will lead to a high profile court case and then finally governments will decide that yes, Uber drivers need to buy commercial insurance.