I would say a government interfering in such a simple transaction is immoral and violates common norms. Traditional taxi cabs and the gov't regulations that propped them up is a textbook example of rent-seeking.
The government almost certainly creates and maintains the rights-of-way on which B will take you.
Revert to horses in countryside settings:
A to B: "I need a ride"
B to A: "I will take you on horseback for a penny!"
B to C: "I need to cross your field/forest/stream"
C to B: "That will be a quarter of a penny, and no refund if you cannot negotiate for permission to enter and cross the next property along the way"
[repeat]
In the history encompassing the legal tradition of where Uber's HQ is based, governments have been interfering with this (by road, trackway and holloway construction and maintenance) since before the Romans invaded Britain.
Indeed, formal regulation of taxi services appeared in England in 1635, with the Hackney Carriage Act setting up a legal framework, with further statutory and regulatory tools (including licensing, which imposed training and safety requirements on drivers and carriage owners, and which granted broad protections against rent-seeking by road owners, including public bodies) before the 1670s.
So the "interference" in the market you pine for has been going on for many centuries.
If taxi regulation is rent-seeking, then Uber and Lyft, bypassing those regulations, should have much lower costs because no rent to pay. So how come they can't profitably offer a cheaper service, or a much better service at the same price?
Well then I guess if your government lawfully asked you for a list of all your Muslim/Jewish/etc. customers or employees you would comply?