Many regulations of this sort - particularly within the taxi space - are merely economic protectionism favoring one group over another. Suppose the &quot;no black people&quot; limit were merely designed for economic protectionism with no malicious intent. Would that make it acceptable?<p>You can add to it various pretexts as erroneous and ineffective justification, e.g. &quot;black people are more likely to be dangerous criminals than non-blacks, we don&#x27;t want passengers getting robbed&quot;, if that makes the question clearer.<p>I&#x27;m also confused by your last line. Why do you believe I&#x27;m &quot;pretending&quot; something? I&#x27;m simply pointing out what the core philosophical question is.<p>I know how I justify <i>my</i> moral positions - my opposition to protectionism (either pro-white or pro-medallion owner) is driven by my opposition to violence. But when you give up opposition to violence - which you must do if it&#x27;s acceptable to protect medallion owners with violence - I don&#x27;t know how to oppose pro-white protectionism. What makes non-whites deserving of protection from bad laws but non-medallion owners undeserving?