Wow, an article by Andrew Leigh that doesn't call for violating property rights, recognises that people have a right to be free to engage in consensual activity, and doubts whether governments automatically what's better for people, than people. Keep it up Andrew, we'll make a libertarian of you yet.

"We should also be exploring how federal or state regulation can best balance the need to protect consumers with supporting innovation and growth in the sharing economy."

The consent of the parties, and the law against fraud, answers all questions of consumer protection.

Federal or state regulators fail both of these tests. Transactions are not consensual since a) voting, b) funding them and c) consuming their "services" are all compulsory.

And the law against misleading and deceptive conduct does not apply to either the legislative or executive arms of government in their official capacity.

Far from having a discussion about how best to restrict other people's consensual productive activities and why, we need a more common understanding that government's pretensions as to consumer protection are false, they make society worse off by their interventions, and they should phuck off out of it.

Dear Jardine,

I fully agree, but why specifically object to "restrict other people's consensual PRODUCTIVE activities"? Isn't the restricting of any of other people's consensual activities terrible enough? What's productivity got to do with it and anyway, who is to determine what's productive and what's not?

Dear Andrew,

Good article, but don't raise your hopes too high:
Government is a Mafia organisation and it likes to collaborate with other big predators.

Even the hotel and taxi industries dwarf in comparison to the elephant in the room - the AMA Mafia. If you are serious about people's freedom to provide consensual services to each other, then you should really protest about all the laws and regulations which prohibit us from providing health services to each other without membership in this Mafia.

As happens in Jewish and Muslim circumcision ceremonies: The little ones are cut and the big ones eat cakes!

J.K.J., makes the very same "deregulation" case that lead to the virtual collapse of wall street and the GFC!
And on just those grounds should be mostly ignored.
He also rails against compulsory voting, the only chance we mere vassals have, to have a say in how government is run.
And if he and or others just wished to protest; easy done, just by putting the incumbent last on the ballot paper, with their preferring partner, one line higher!
Asking people not to vote is asking them to become completely powerless to affect change, and then they're so much easier to radicalize!
And should also be ignored on those grounds.
People must vote, if only to show their contempt for the major parties!
The non voting demographic is now as high as 40% and those numbers, if applied to a single minor party, could completely change elections, and leave the powerful, virtually voiceless, or no longer able to resist the very reform we must have!
Reforms needed as never before, if only to prevent us becoming a virtual third world banana republic, owned and controlled by foreign interests.
We don't need to have a war, when all the carpet bagging, price gouging foreigners need do, is use the wealth they've patently purloined from us, due to our asinine foreign investment laws; to buy what they want, including perceived political loyalty?
We need huge tax reform and simplification, just to end current endemic avoidance, and or the few carrying the total load for many!
And we need to follow that up with a return to public ownership of then lower costing essential service; and also start to invest in our own people and their better ideas!
Seriously, doing what you've always done only ever gets you what you've always got! And if management tells you just one thing! It tells you that there's always a better way! No ifs, buts or maybes!
Rhrosty.

This is a super article, simply super.

Rumour has it that AirBnB is increasing being utilised by amateur sex workers, who utilise their pudenda, when vacant, for temporary occupation at low, low, prices.

Yuyutsu
Yes indeedy.

Rhostry

"J.K.J., makes the very same "deregulation" case that lead to the virtual collapse of wall street and the GFC!"

This assumes that your theory of economics is correct, that the GFC was caused by not enough regulation rather than too much. You look on a government monopoly of the supply of money and credit, and a consequential crisis issuing from the *financial* sector, and fail to see the connection.

You are not in a position to make your argument unless you have first refuted the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which you appear to be ignorant of. Go ahead. At least understand it. A summary is here: http://mises.org/tradcycl/econdepr.asp

It is also contradictory of you to complain at the collapse of “wall street” if the premise of your argument is that capitalism is exploitative or otherwise anti-social.

“He also rails against compulsory voting, the only chance we mere vassals have, to have a say in how government is run.”

1. That's an argument against the superiority of government decision-making, not in favour.
2. It’s not true: “we mere vassals” would also “have a chance” to have a say in how government is run if voting were not compulsory. And in either case, you would have NO LEGAL REMEDY WHATSOEVER if the government just decided to ignore you.

“And if he and or others just wished to protest; easy done, just by putting the incumbent last on the ballot paper, with their preferring partner, one line higher!”

Imagine if someone threatened to cage and rape you if you didn’t choose whether you want McDonalds, Burger King or KFC, and claimed this was a superior mode of decision-making. And then when you said you don't want any, they said just choose the one you dislike least, and then that would be taken as blanket approval for anything they do, and they would be under no obligation whatsoever to provide anything they said they would.

Can you see how you’re only proving that the process of political decision-making is in every way LESS REPRESENTATIVE than the process of market decision-making.

The rest of the world thinks it's wonderful that they can get cheaper, better quicker accommodation and transport than through the stitched-up guild parasite systems set up by government? And the first thing that occurs to government is to ban it - on the false pretence that they care more about the consumers, than the consumers care about themselves!

Can you see how in every case market actors, unlike voters, have a 100% say on what they want which is binding, not a one-twenty-three-millionth say under duress about what they don't want which can be disregarded with impunity?