I am shocked that you're still clinging to this argument. You are suggesting that officially sanctioned NYC cab drivers should be allowed to not give rides to people based on race and destination (extrapolate to any service provider be allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason). The fact that you're claiming racism (and any other subjective thing about a rider) solves harms caused by inefficiency in the NYC cab industry is morally repugnant.

I don't appreciate how you've bastardized my argument and then really eloquently explained yours. But that doesn't matter because your argument is a wash.

Maybe the system is inefficient, maybe it's not. The law came out of people not offering rides based on race and destination. What is the point of a subjectively offered city service with no viable alternative?

I know you think you understand the system, but why do you claim to know the system is inefficient and does more harm to both consumers and cab drivers? Is it based on this article? The comments? Have you done or read studies on effects of official city taxis and how their destination rules impact the citizens and drivers?

I doubt you have. So this is my argument You're trying to impose what you think (with likely not enough information) on an entire industry and all of its consumers. If the industry was so terrible towards cab drivers, then the industry would change because no one would be a cab driver. But there are still more people willing to drive a cab than there are medallions available so this horrible injustice your claiming doesn't seem to impact drivers as much as you wish it did.

If there was a law that made my industry so inefficient it harmed me and my customers so much and benefited my boss to an outrageous extent then I would show my disapproval by changing industries (either permanently or temporarily via a strike). That is how changes to the status quo are made in a market. Reducing demand so suppliers have to change their offer.