I really wish discussions about how regulations protect the consumer didn’t start with the assumption that there was no better option than government regulation to afford that same protection.
What other options are there? Letting the market "solve it" is not an option because the incentives are not aligned and market actors are not rational.
In addition, it is worth understanding that it is not sufficient for most market actors to be rational. Because even if you have a single irrational actor, game theory takes over and everyone starts acting irrationally in an effort to not get crushed.
Labelling that kind of behaviour as rational is a neat rhetorical trick. But by any objective standard of ethics - or even realistic expectations of medium-to-long-term survivability - it doesn't meet any of the standards required for rational action, any more than any other hoarding behaviour does.
And there's the post-financial view that the real benchmark for rationality isn't competitive acquisition but maximisation of personal and collective opportunity - which is something that markets consistently fail at. (Although again the stock rhetoric claims otherwise - typically with selective interpretation of the available evidence.)
They just keep failing.
What do you have in mind?
Regulations on taxis were sold as a public safety measure but the regulators became captured by the industry.
Uber and Lyft sidestepped the regulations and prices went down, service improved dramatically, and there was no reduction in safety. (In fact, it’s likely drunk driving has gone down and improved public safety.)
In this instance, private industry is currently a better regulator than the regulators were.
Furthermore: Is there a general principle here that can be applied across a range of situations as a better alternative to government regulations?
Technically neither of those is a failure of regulation, those are side effects of regulation.
Uber and Lyft removed transparency of costs beyond knowing the cost of your trip for instance which isn't a benefit.
In fact I can't think of much that is related to regulation that they do better beyond being good enough for now by most metrics that people care about. Of course if that changes in the future nothing can be done.
I am fine with Uber and Lyft existing and I do agree that taxis had in some places made themselves into a nuisance but I don't know that those companies did a better job as much as they just ignored all those problems and assumed they weren't important.
Please, the taxi companies have been decimated world wide. Its absolutely clear that people are way happier working and consuming Lyft/Uber services.
That's the only cost that matters isn't it? And the cost that taxis wouldn't provide a quote for until service was rendered.