Rob's Blog

I just caught a few moments in the middle of a TV documentary about illegal taxis. It was going on about how there are 150 sexual assaults in unlicensed cabs every year, and there were two policemen harassing some guy who they thought had tried to offer someone a lift for money, and needless to say I started ranting about how they should leave him alone because he’s only trying to earn an honest living.

And then I found myself trying to explain to someone else in the room why entering into a voluntary transaction with someone to provide a service, such as giving them a lift home, is honest, no matter what the law says. How can it be honest if it’s illegal? Because the law does not define morality. It’s a bunch of rules thought up by third parties. Making it illegal to give people lifts for money is what Perry de Havilland would call replacing social interaction with politically derived formulae.

Sure, there is a need or, I should say, a market for licensed taxis. With a licensed taxi you get various guarantees and reduced risk. But if people are using unlicensed taxis then that shows that there is a demand for more taxis, or cheaper taxis, or both, and frankly it’s no-one’s business except the people involved in the transaction.

Now whether it’s advisable to get into an unlicensed taxi, especially if you’re a girl alone or even an unarmed man, is another matter entirely. The statistics are there and everyone who is interested can weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves. Just because a few people posing as taxi drivers are predators is no reason to harass all unlicensed taxi drivers. Most of them really are trying to earn an honest living.

Update: I’ve just thought of something else. This isn’t just about licensed vs. unlicensed taxis. It’s about the government having a monopoly on licensing taxis. Let’s say we all agree that taxis licensed by the government are too scarce and too expensive. Also, unlicensed taxis are too dangerous. There’s an obvious niche here for me to set up Rob’s Taxi Vetting Company PLC.

I will issue a certificate to anyone who comes to me and satisfies me that they are a safe taxi driver. I’ll give them a driving test, inspect the vehicle, and do background checks. I will also provide insurance. And I’ll do it all faster and cheaper than the local government can do it. Furthermore, I won’t artificially limit the number of certificates I hand out; anyone can apply. I’d better make sure I do a good job, because if too many taxis with my certificate are involved in accidents or too many of the drivers I certify turn out to be rapists, my certificates will lose value and people will start using taxis certified by Joe’s Taxi Insurance Company Ltd.

So you see: by insisting on being the only ones able to say who is allowed to be taxi driver and who isn’t, the government is forcing an artificial choice onto people. A choice between government licensed and illegal taxis. Instead, they could have a choice between myriad taxis of variable repute and cost.

Could the problem of illegal taxi assaults be the law of unintended consequences at play yet again?

This entry was posted on Saturday, February 14th, 2004 at 12:12 am and is filed under Authorised Theft. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.