Regulating Taxis

On October 1 this year, the New York Times published an article about the airport in Minneapolis. Apparently the taxi drivers servicing the airport were frequently refusing to carry passengers who carried alcohol, citing religious objections to liquor. The airport was punishing these taxi drivers by sending them to the back of the line of available taxis. Passengers had been insulted and frustrated. Now it was the drivers' turn.

Since then both parties are working on a compromise. Suggested were different color lights atop the vehicle indicating whether a driver is willing to carry alcohol-bearing passengers or not.

Dennis Prager, on his daily radio show, has been addressing this topic for several days. He argues that willingness to carry anyone who can pay anywhere they need to go is definitional of a taxi service. Therefore a company, or a driver, cannot refuse to take a passenger with alcoholic cargo, nor can they refuse pets, nor can they refuse to drive a woman to an abortion clinic. So says the self-designated wise man on the topic, Dennis Prager.

I object. In a free economy, a company may do what they wish with their own business, providing it does not endanger or defraud the public (build homes with lead pipes or fail to build a home for which one has been paid). The obsession over "rights" these days is nonsense. There is no inalienable right to taxi transportation. Nor is there the inalienable right to carry liquor, to own a dog, or to go to an abortion clinic. That those practices are legal does not mean they are mandatory, or that all people must support them.

The talk show host goes on to argue by painting a picture of what to him looks absurd. "You're going to get the Muslim Taxi Company, the Libertarian Taxi Company, the Christian Taxi Company..."

I'm sorry. Did any of those things sound bad to you? What sounds bad to me is if a government regulates morality out of business so that people of conscience can no longer make a living. Suppose the government passed laws requiring you to, if you had a store, sell alcohol. I mean, that's the definition of a store, right? Owner provides goods customers want.

The thing about Mr. Prager's "ridiculous" scenario is that in a free market, variety and competition works. If you as a driver did not want to transport me with my bottle, then I with my bottle could find a company that did not have such a policy, or I could throw away the bottle and keep the first company. If there was opportunity, I with my bottle could start my own company with direct opposite policies of yours. Then the people could decide which company suited them. There could be competition not only in prices, but in quality of service and variety of services. Eventually, if it is truly unpopular to have a policy such as yours, the people would put you out of business by taking their money elsewhere. Then you would have to find another job.

In the ideal world of Dennis Prager, the driver who refuses to drive would be commanded to drive. Our free country, where slavery is illegal, leaves the driver two choices: quit or obey. Suppose he has strong convictions, and decides to quit.

He goes to school, picks up a degree in pharmacology, since he has always been interested in chemistry and medicine, but he refuses to dispense the "morning after pill." The government will not hear of this stand of morality either. He is forced again to choose.

Choosing to turn in a resignation, our champion of conscience gets a job at a nursing home. He is just an orderly, bringing residents meals and mail and extra blankets, sending for doctors, and helping to transport patients. One day he tries to bring water to a woman who, though she is alive, is unable to clearly communicate. A judge says the woman doesn't want water, that she wants to die, which is called suicide (if she really had control; otherwise it is at best assisted suicide, which is illegal, or murder, which is illegal). The orderly must not bring her water (which is legal), for that will prolong her life. He is finally given yet another choice: stand up for the right to basic provision of food and water (remember life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?), try to bring her water, and be arrested; or quit; or comply.

So his life goes and the lives of thousands of other men who do not separate their beliefs about God and morality from their actions. One day, every money-making job is so regulated as to prohibit these people from working. Only those whose consciences are seared can earn money and run businesses. This is persecution. None of the things the government demanded in this scenario were against the law (though some of the things it implied were). But the government used its power to oppress a class of people whose understanding of God's Law, however indirect, stood in the government's way.

The thing is, I'm a person of conscience. True, I would like to make many things illegal so that they would be out of the question, but at least until then I should have the freedom to conscientiously object.

Just for the record, the definition of Taxi:
n : a car driven by a person whose job is to take passengers where they want to go in exchange for money (taxicab. (n.d.). WordNet® 2.0. Retrieved October 11, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/taxicab)
or
n: a public passenger vehicle, esp. an automobile, usually fitted with a taximeter. (based on Random House: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/taxicab)

People who believe the government should stay out of business are often called libertarians. That is not what I am. There are many issues of what we would call morality, such as adultery and murder, of property rights, and of contract law which it is the government's job to enforce. See this post by Matt Chancey about "Why I am NOT a Libertarian." His is a pretty long post, but the excellent logic, Scriptural backing, and fine writing are worth the read. If you read it, you'll understand why, in 2012 or later, I'll be saying "Matt Chancey for President."

To God be all glory.