Ironic example given that every medicinal marijuana dispensary in the country is operating in spite of Federal law. They only get away with it because the US government has decided to, at least for now, turn a blind eye.
That's a little simplistic. They're also taking advantage of local and state laws that explicitly allow them to operate. There's no such arbitrage to be had in cab laws.
You were able to use marijuana as an example because legalization of it is considered a reasonable opinion. This is only possible due to its existing prevalence, which is only due to the brave/stupid people risking their lives to distribute it in spite of the fiat against it. Reality drives the model, not vice-versa.
The original Ubercab model (allow anybody to sign up as a driver without any vetting of anything) was absolutely atrocious. The new one is better, but uber drivers benefit from customers who feel like the product is as safe as the regulated product without actually doing things like ensuring that the cars are inspected.
That said, I pretty much lost respect for Uber when they pretended that expressing high-demand rates as a multiple was clear. Nobody with any UX experience would've agreed with them that it was clear... but they all would've agreed that it's a great way to camoflague massively inflated rates.
Zimride arranges carpools for long trips, but Lyft is pretty much just an Uber clone with private individuals operating their personal cars. There is some vetting but no insurance or anything as far as I know.
The hypocrisy of your posts is almost overwhelming.
That said, my original constructive criticism got me hellbanned (as happens to nearly all people who post sentiment that could be construed as anti-libertarian), whereas your idiotic and unaware hypocrisy got you nothing.
Unshocking, given the faggotry of you and this site.
You know you actually did have a very good point and I even agree entirely with it. But the anger and aggression in your writing is such a huge turn-off that it was difficult to fairly consider what you said, and that was the gist of my facetious post.
Evidently some people agree with me. You can continue to be angry that your style of discourse isn't accepted, or you can do something about it and have people give your insight the time it deserves. I believe you're selling yourself short.
Should startups be allowed to sell Marijuana? Of course not, either everyone should, or nobody should. Level playing fields and all that.