> If the way things are before was better, why did we end in the place we are now? This is a good principle to use, but it's fallacious to use it to argue that

> If the way things are before was better, why did we end in the place we are now? This is a good principle to use, but it's fallacious to use it to argue that this means the place we are now is better in any kind of absolute sense. What it means is that you need to find who it's better for, and figure out what they were able to do to effect their will on the world to make it so. In some cases, the current situation is objectively worse for everyone—sometimes even including the party that was attempting to optimize! People are very often wrong about what will give a better outcome, for them or for others. Even if things are better for one or more parties, that doesn't mean that they're better for the system as a whole. There is no "tide of history" in the vast majority of cases. There's just people trying to optimize for their own priorities. In this case, IMNSHO, the thing that would have made the most difference is better regulations—both on the types of business that were being disrupted (eg, transport services), and on labor (eg, to ensure that Lyft drivers are being treated like employees when they are, for all intents and purposes, employees, and compensated and benefited appropriately).