I happily grant you that what I wrote looked like a strawman, and read out of context it was. However, I used the "to make a small group of people money" bit as

I happily grant you that what I wrote looked like a strawman, and read out of context it was. However, I used the "to make a small group of people money" bit as a piece of euphony, paralleling the original sentence construction of the poster to whom I was replying. The entire point of my parallel - the only point - was not about someone profiting, but rather that I think the important element is the massive public health concern, not about zoning regulation. That said, I disagree completely and vehemently with most of what you said. Allow me to respond to what I believe the salient pieces were. I'll rephrase for brevity, but please let me know if I've mis-represented your position in doing so: 1 - "Sharing economy doesn't undo regulations, they just demand new types." To date, we haven't seen the sharing economy demand "new types" of regulations; we've seen it completely ignore existing regulations and lobby against any replacement, even where those regulations are reasonable (e.g., requiring commercial drivers to have commercial auto insurance, w/r/t Uber). 2 - "Don't fit well ... not a reason to dismiss them entirely." That is a strawman. I did not advocate for dismissing them entirely. I don't generally advocate for eliminating viable business models out of bureaucratic laziness. The current situation, however, is "ignore public health regulations until we kill enough people to draw attention to ourselves." That is not an acceptable road forward under any circumstance, and being adamantly opposed to it is not the same as being entirely opposed to the existence of an "uber for chefs", or whatever we're calling it. 3- I disagree about the "order of magnitude" argument. It's rather like dismissing an Uber approach to user safety on the argument that each driver is just one driver. We must address it as the entire service, which collectively - if it scales, and let's be fair, scaling is the point - would end up serving enormous numbers of people. 4- "Imagine if healthy, home-cooked dinner was cheap and convenient." An appeal to pathos. Largely irrelevant to the discussion, and also to the services as they exist(which generally involve sit-down meals for groups of people at fairly immodest prices).