[asift]

Uber is highly regulated by the forces of market competition. Forces which are far better at protecting and serving consumers than the government.

>What is superior about purely paid drivers?

Low cost of transportation for consumers. No driver is entitled to a job. The efficient movement of goods and people are far more important than preserving jobs from being destroyed by technology that enhances the well-being of society.

[zanny]

Now while I am arguing for significantly reduced regulation around Uber, I would not say markets in general protect or serve consumers better. If markets had their way, anyone could sell a product that claims to do anything else, and if the consumers cannot organize information and catalog what products are fraudulent then people are vulnerable to deception.

That already happens today, in our "tightly regulated" market. Wonder drugs or miracle cures or instant diets or self help books claim to fix everything and do nothing. Drop regulation and it gets worse. Consumers are simply bad at organizing information about businesses, though I would concede that might be partially due to an expectation that "the government will take care of it".

Other things - environmental pollution / destruction (and other secondary costs of business), exploitative employment practices (particularly exploiting the poor and uneducated), using economies of scale to drive out competition, rent seeking, collusion, asset hoarding, and fraud all occur in a natural market and to varying degrees government involvement helps abate some - certainly not all, and certainly not perfectly - these anti-consumer effects of business.

You can look at almost any industry and point at gratuitous and stifling regulation, very often used as shut door tactics by wealthy market players who use force of law to stop competition, because playing in markets usually keeps you honest. Just because Uber is innovative does not exonerate them from how they are playing legal hardball just as bad as many of the companies that preceded them, and if given the opportunity would not erect the same walls to competition their fore-bearers put up. Besides the concerns about workers rights for their drivers, they are actively lobbying cities around the globe to both reduce regulation for themselves and increase it for Lyft or other possible competitors.

[asift]

I think you're being too narrow in your conception of what markets do. I'm not denying the existence of snake oil salesman--they absolutely do exist--but there are many ways markets combat such behavior. I suspect much of this gets crowded out by the existing regulatory regime, but it's not hard to envision how it would work outside of the status quo (with substantially less cost to consumers).

Underwriters' Laboratories, Consumer Reports, Amazon Reviews, and Yelp are all good examples of effective, though imperfect, market regulation. Producers have no interest in harming their consumers and consumers have no interest in dealing with producers who will harm them. Everyone has an incentive to find ways to ensure mutually beneficial trade. However, when regulatory regimes are monopolized, a new set of incentives emerge which often have nothing to do with consumer safety. Worst of all, consumers and producers have no means to express their dissatisfaction and exit the regime. This is inherently different from companies like Yelp who must fight on a daily basis to continue delivering value to their customers.