Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it even remotely reasonable that taxi drivers should have background checks? Are we really that worried about rogue taxi drivers? What is the worst case scenario here? What exactly does a background check for taxi drivers prevent? The idea that the state should have anything to say about driving a car in exchange for money is absurd on its face and nothing more than the worst, silliest kind of security theater…
The state uses regulation for health and safety purposes all the time. Valid or not, the state, affirmed by democratic vote, wants fingerprinting as an additional assurance of driver fitness. Let me turn this around: what in particular about driving passengers for profit means they should be exempt from regulation? Or do you simply reject regulation on some sort of absolutist libertarian principle?
I was arguing that the regulation itself is inadvisable, and I don't think the position is particularly absolutist. The government should step in to regulate areas that pose a significant risk to the public, but that the market does a poor job of regulating on its own. Things like food safety and environmental protections are prime examples of this. Taxi driving is not.
The damage causable by a single rogue taxi driver is, at its worst, minimal and not much different from the damage that can be caused by any random malicious citizen. If a rapist or murderer wants to rape and murder, being a taxi driver helps them in so doing marginally at best.
Do you know what does do a pretty good job at regulating taxi drivers? An instant, non-optional review system.