[djf1]

If "transportation is a right" means approximately, "everyone has access to affordable ridesharing", I don't think capping surge pricing yields this outcome.

Hitting the price cap necessarily leads to excess demand, i.e. some people have _no_ access.

In effect, those willing to pay the most are replaced by a random subset of those willing to pay PRICE_CAP or more.

[nicoburns]

> In effect, those willing to pay the most are replaced by a random subset of those willing to pay PRICE_CAP or more.

This is precisely the effect. And many would consider this fairer. I think it depends on whether you people's willingness to pay as being determined more by their preferences (between say convenient transport or having a bigger house), or their income level. If it's the latter, then I think it's fair to question for each good and service, why should someone with a greater income be prioritized?

[djf1]

I suppose my axiom is that "free market price" == "fair value". On this basis, a price ceiling is _unfair_ for both:

• the provider (they must exchange their product for less than it's worth). • the consumer who values the service at free market price (they lose the service to someone who values it less).

Regarding willingness to pay, I think the underlying factors are much to complicated to list (e.g. a pregnant woman heading to the hospital). The beauty of a free market is that fair price sorts itself out.