[Dirlewanger]

Even the most dug-in libertarian can't really argue against these kinds of regulations; automobiles affect everyone within their vicinity. Ideally, all automobile manufacturers should be politely told to shut the fuck up and deal with it, but the realist in me thinks Chao's pockets will be lined with their money quite soon.

[liberte82]

You'd be surprised. The problem with regulations is that they have done their job so well that a subset of people now believe they are not necessary and that the market will "take care of itself". See also: vaccines.

[unityByFreedom]

People can change their tune. Greenspan was chairman of the Fed for 20 years arguing for free market the whole time. It was his life's philosophy. Then he testified to Congress after the housing meltdown '08 and said he was wrong. The banks can't be trusted to regulate themselves via the market, and regulation is necessary.

We will face a recession again. Trump will repeal Dodd Frank, banks will start making riskier loans and obscuring them in hidden investment products, and one day someone big enough will pull out, causing the whole house of cards to collapse. And, Republicans and Democrats will do another TARP because the alternative is World Depression II. That is, unless Trump seizes enough power to prevent TARP II.

[liberte82]

People can change their tune, but that's not what is happening in today's political climate. It's been less than ten years since the last financial crisis, and no one has forgotten that it was loose regulations that caused it. What we have happening today is something much more sinister - crises and bailouts are becoming part of the system itself. Socialized bailouts, privatized profits.

[unityByFreedom]

Yeah. I suspect it's not new. We've gone back and forth between being red and blue, through recessions and wars. We need to remain vigilant, and also remember that history does have a way of repeating itself. Let's just hope this isn't a big bang type event, and more of a wake up call for everyone.

[slang800]

> Even the most dug-in libertarian can't really argue against these kinds of regulations

Oh, I beg to differ. From a hard-core libertarian perspective, the state has no right to exist, let alone impose arbitrary regulations on business owners. People should be free to trade at will and guarantees on safety should be handled through a contract between the people who are trading. To impose regulations on trade would be an act of aggression.

During vehicle operation, everyone using the road would need to agree on an acceptable level of risk, probably managed by the road owner, not a state. Even if the owner of a particular road refuses to do business with you, you would still be able to buy whatever vehicles you like and operate them on your own property.

[djrogers]

> From a hard-core libertarian perspective, the state has no right to exist

That's a completely bogus argument- you're conflating anarchism with libertarianism in order to make libertarians look bad.

[stale2002]

That's not anarchism. Self driving cars are already safer than humans.

If something is already safer than humans, then it should be deployed in mass, NOW. Screw the laws. Or get rid of them.

A million people die every year due to cars. The market can fix this if government gets out of the way.

[slang800]

The argument I gave was distinctly anarcho-capitalist. But, of course, there are plenty of statist arguments for reducing regulation.

[chc]

"The state has no right to exist" is basically the definition of anarchism.

[slang800]

There's certainly a division between libertarian minarchists and libertarian anarchists, but I'm talking about the most "hard-core" application of the NAP.

[nickbauman]

Historically, to the degree that the state recedes from markets is to the same degree that markets get more volatile, smaller and less profitable.

[slang800]

That might be true, though I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that. But my point wasn't that regulation is inefficient - it's that libertarians can be quite a bit more extreme than the OP thinks.

[pharrington]

>>That might be true, though I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that.

Libertarian paradises aren't always theoretical. See early bitcoin, and the commonly cited Somalia. On the opposite end, known authoritarian-tightass state China currently has the most efficient capitalist economy the planet has yet seen.

[nickbauman]

Bitcoin as an economy is essentially a hoax.

[pharrington]

While I can't disagree with that, I still think it's relevant to point out that as bitcoin's controlling powers have become increasingly regulated, so has bitcoin's stability.

[stale2002]

Wrong. Self driving cars are already safer than humans. We need to put them on the road, in mass, NOW.

Every year we wait is another million people dead, due to terrible human drivers.

[unityByFreedom]

That's a great idea if the tech were ready.

Introduced prematurely, it could set the tech back due to public outcry. A few more autopilot deaths in the US in this political climate could really hurt the industry. Chao is looking for an excuse to pull permits.

[stale2002]

Maybe in big government California there would be outcry.

But not in Arizona, or any other red state.

Get the federal government out of regulating it, and let the states decide.

Then, when red states save thousands of lives, the blue states will follow.

[unityByFreedom]

> Then, when red states save thousands of lives, the blue states will follow.

Haha or vice versa! Depends who proceeds in the right way.

I don't believe there's definitively an answer as to whether Tesla (arguably red and anti-regulation, moving forward without much caution) or Google (blue, more cautious) will find more success. I personally think Google will, but even better than that, it's great that we have such a system that permits that level of competition.