I'm questioning the existence of the law not the judgment of the taxi drivers. I'm also questioning why hackers would report people under this law in the transportation industry when an analogous law in their own industry would be rebelled against and circumvented almost immediately.

If there were similar laws in my industry then I wouldn't have sympathy for myself.

I knew the risks of my industry before I started the job. I made a decision to take it based on my salary/benefits vs the potential hazards. Cab drivers do the same. The law is in place to prevent people from being exploited by cab drivers. If my industry likewise needed further anti-exploitation rules, I wouldn't be opposed to them.

But not only that, as fun as it is to debate the merits or pitfalls of laws regarding yellow cab drivers in NYC, at some point it is important to recognize that the laws are a certain way and until they are changed or made "blue", they are the system that we have to work within.

Your last sentence confuses me. The way to change them is to first debate their merits and pitfalls. Your entire case seems to be "The law is the way that it is and thats final, anyone who doesn't like it just shouldn't be a cab driver". My argument is that "this system is inefficient and does more harm for the majority of consumers and cab drivers while benefitting the larger cab companies that can work their way towards a monopoly or oligopoly easily so we should act, as consumers, to reform it (or at the very least jeer it)".

If there is a similar law in your industry you'd just give up? Your argument of knowing the risk beforehand is irrelevant. I'm not a cab driver nor do I want to be, I'm just pointing out that this system is ill conceived and as most of us our entrepreneurs, aspiring entrepreneurs or just problem solvers in general I am surprised that this sort of scheme of creating an artificially high barrier of entry, price fixing and regulation has received such a positive response.

I am shocked that you're still clinging to this argument. You are suggesting that officially sanctioned NYC cab drivers should be allowed to not give rides to people based on race and destination (extrapolate to any service provider be allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason). The fact that you're claiming racism (and any other subjective thing about a rider) solves harms caused by inefficiency in the NYC cab industry is morally repugnant.

I don't appreciate how you've bastardized my argument and then really eloquently explained yours. But that doesn't matter because your argument is a wash.

Maybe the system is inefficient, maybe it's not. The law came out of people not offering rides based on race and destination. What is the point of a subjectively offered city service with no viable alternative?

I know you think you understand the system, but why do you claim to know the system is inefficient and does more harm to both consumers and cab drivers? Is it based on this article? The comments? Have you done or read studies on effects of official city taxis and how their destination rules impact the citizens and drivers?

I doubt you have. So this is my argument You're trying to impose what you think (with likely not enough information) on an entire industry and all of its consumers. If the industry was so terrible towards cab drivers, then the industry would change because no one would be a cab driver. But there are still more people willing to drive a cab than there are medallions available so this horrible injustice your claiming doesn't seem to impact drivers as much as you wish it did.

If there was a law that made my industry so inefficient it harmed me and my customers so much and benefited my boss to an outrageous extent then I would show my disapproval by changing industries (either permanently or temporarily via a strike). That is how changes to the status quo are made in a market. Reducing demand so suppliers have to change their offer.

>>You are suggesting that officially sanctioned NYC cab drivers should be allowed to not give rides to people based on race and destination

My argument is that a private company should be able to offer whatever service they want. If the city of New York wants to offer a complete service then they should add a taxi service as part of the MTA. Also, I don't think I mentioned race. Destination discrimination is mainly about minimizing risk and avoiding areas dense with blue dots on this map http://projects.nytimes.com/crime/homicides/map

>>What is the point of a subjectively offered city service with no viable alternative?

This is not a city service. It's a private service in the city that well established companies have lobbied nyc government to increase the barrier of entry for. Subways and busses are city services, they are the ones that should have universal service routes.

>> If there was a law that made my industry so inefficient it harmed me and my customers so much and benefited my boss to an outrageous extent then I would show my disapproval by changing industries (either permanently or temporarily via a strike). That is how changes to the status quo are made in a market. Reducing demand so suppliers have to change their offer.

No, going on strike would decrease supply NOT demand. Also, do you really think cab drivers have an alternate industry to flock to?

>My argument is that a private company should be able to offer whatever service they want.

This is not your original argument. The Yellow Cab company does offer the service they want -> A trip to anywhere that cant be discriminated against based on race or destination (it’s on the NYC transportation website). Your argument was that each individual driver should be able to pick and choose who to take based on any factors they deem relevant, which DOES include race, religion, or any other factor you can think of.

>This is not a city service.

I apologize, I began to use “city service” instead of “only service governmentally sanctioned by the city.” But the argument remains, what is the point of allowing subjectivity in the only government sanctioned cab company?

>No, going on strike would decrease supply not demand

Again, I apologize for not being more explicit. I was referring to the demand for cab driver jobs by potential cab drivers. I switched from talking about the market for cab rides to the market for cab driver jobs without explaining. Going on strike would decrease the demand for cab driver jobs. The suppliers would then have to make a more compelling offer to potential cab drivers for them to get back behind the wheels of cabs.

>Do you really think cab drivers have an alternative industry to flock to?

Yes. At any point I’m sure there are thousands of other unskilled-labor jobs in NYC that cab drivers can get in to. Driving is not a field of specialized labor. Anyone with a license and can pass the test can do it.