Listen, this is the way that the society you live in was built. People come up with laws to make the society better for everyone
No. I mean, yes, sometimes. That's nice, when it's true. But often, laws are there for other purposes. Sometimes those purposes are at cross-purposes with progress. In some places, taxis are pretty good, so I understand why people would defend them there. In a lot of places, taxis are very crap, and the system is clearly not serving the people. In at least some of those cases, it clearly was not intended to serve the people.
and people are expected to follow those laws.
Oh sure, some people. You and I small fries, we are expected to follow those laws. Those of us who are not officials or officers or employees of the state have to follow those laws. Laws are for little people. The State of California Franchise Tax Board can take your money and not give it back even if seizing it was unwarranted; any money they've had for more than a year is theirs forever, even if they weren't entitled to any to begin with. But if they think you owe them some money, look the fuck out. That's just my pet example right now, of laws being created just to steal from people. You think that's justifiable?
One such set of laws are the ones governing the taxi industry. They ensure there aren't too many cabs on the road so that it doesn't become dangerous, people can access cabs fairly in the eyes of the law even if they are challenged in doing so, and that the people and driver are adequately protected.
Again, maybe they do that in some places, but certainly not in the USA, certainly not in Panama or Costa Rica... I've heard plenty of tales here on Slashdot which suggest they aren't actually that good in England after all... where are these mythical unicorn taxicabs that are always clean and safe and never rip you off or just fail to come pick you up if they don't feel like it? Or who never take another fare before you and therefore show up massively late? I call shenanigans.
I agree that they are laudable goals, but not that taxi licensing achieves them. Also, if you need taxi licensing to achieve most of those goals, it can never provide for them. If your cars aren't safe without taxi licensing, taxi licensing won't make your cars safe. There's more cars around them than there are taxis. If your people aren't safe without taxi licensing, taxi licensing won't make your people safe. Nutters don't give a shit about consequences. That's part of what makes them nutters. Taxi licensing may be part of a successful scheme to provide access to the disabled, I personally have no experience of that so I can't speak for or against it in terms of efficacy. However, I believe that if the state wants such a thing to exist, then it should be providing it at cost, rather than mandating that someone else provide it. That does tend to inflate the state, but there's lots of things I think make more sense as a public service than as a private one, and mandatory access for the disabled is one of those things. Otherwise, the costs are unfairly paid for only by other taxi users, rather than by society (which is supposed to be deriving the benefit, right? not just taxi riders.)