I'm comparing the logic, not the gravity of the situations.
You had pointed out (rightly) that purchasing and holding medallions is legal, and those who bought them did so with the understanding that they would profit. At the same time, they must have observed that the very existence of the medallion system limited the freedom of others. Some might have even genuinely viewed this as altruistic.
Your argument is that requiring medallions to drive a taxi (which I agree has become an inefficient and slightly corrupt situation) is in any way comparable to slavery is an insult to anybody who's ever read any history.
The problem here isn't some people "driving taxis", its that these people, and organizations associated with them, lobbied for and bought into a system that prevents, by force of government, anyone else from driving taxis.
And of course, even that is not a crime against humanity. If it was, I'd be advocating the use of military intervention if it was serious enough, such as in the case of mass slavery or genocide. All I'm saying is that if/when we get rid of this system, we don't need to compensate medallion owners.
That's a valid argument (I think some token compensation is fair, but can totally see both sides).
But if you interlaced every other word with 'fuck' and questioning the sexuality of other posters, you couldn't expect to be judged on the merits of your argument. Personally (others may disagree), I see totally unnecessary comparisons to slavery the same way.
You had pointed out (rightly) that purchasing and holding medallions is legal, and those who bought them did so with the understanding that they would profit. At the same time, they must have observed that the very existence of the medallion system limited the freedom of others. Some might have even genuinely viewed this as altruistic.
All that was true of slaveowners and slaves.