Let them drive cabs in Mogudishu if they think they have it bad surrounded by us infidels.
Of course it is the government's business. Taxis or public conveyances are a franchise. The government has granted an exclusive privilege or license to act in a certain manner prohibited to the general community.
Although both are exclusive, a distinction is made between a "monopoly" and a franchise. As explained in Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of, 36 U.S. 420 (1837) 36 U.S. 420 (Pet.):
"A monopoly is that which has been granted without consideration; as a monopoly of trade; or of the manufacture of any particular article, to the exclusion of all competition. It is withdrawing that which is a common right, from the community, and vesting it in one or more individuals, to the exclusion of all others."
A "public" franchise is one affecting common or public rights. It is exclusively granted as a "license" to a corporation or individual to provide a public service or utility in order to promote the general comfort and convenience; advance the public prosperity; or to facilitate the purposes of safe, convenient and cheap ways for transportation and travel. The rights of public franchises are established only in charter or license and the services provided are subject to regulation under the public laws.
As explained by Justice Story in Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of, 36 U.S. 420 (1837) 36 U.S. 420 (Pet.):
"...Another is, that wherever a grant is made for a valuable consideration, which involves public duties and charges, the grant shall be construed so as to make the indemnity co-extensive with the burden. Qui sentit onus, sentire debet et commodum. In the case of a ferry, there is a public charge and duty. The owner must keep the ferry in good repair, upon the peril of an indictment. He must keep sufficient accommodations for all travellers, at all reasonable times. He must content himself with a reasonable toll. Such is the jus publicum. In return, the law will exclude all injurious competition, and deem every new ferry a nuisance, which subtracts from him the ordinary custom and toll. See Com. Dig. Piscary, B.; Ibid. Ferry. So strong is the duty of the ferry-owner to the public, that it was held, in Paine v. Patrick, 3 Mod. 289, 294, that the ferry-owner could not excuse himself from not keeping proper boats, even by showing that he had erected a bridge more convenient for passengers. It would be a fraud upon such a grant of a ferry, to divert the travel, and yet to impose the burden...."