[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.

[nickbauman]

I think you have cause and effect reversed. The regulation came in as the network experienced serious problems with the reliability of transactions. Which tracks with history of money and market economies.