>
But the "permissionless innovation" theory probably concludes the reason we are not driving around in flying cars just yet is precisely due to government hamstringing the great inventor.I don't think the "permissionless innovation" theory is something to be applied in isolation. It only covers some aspects of human endeavour.
The reason we're not all in flying cars right now are twofold:
1. Flying is much less energy-efficient than driving on a solid surface, since you need to expend additional energy to maintain altitude.
2. Humanity as a whole has proven beyond doubt that regular people are nowhere near responsible enough to safely operate regular cars, and the kind of accidents that happen on the roads every day would have much more disastrous consequences if they happened in the air.
Self-driving tech might eventually solve 2., but we're not there yet today, so one can't blame governments for not allowing things that can not be done safely with today's technology. And even with 2. solved, the market still likely won't accept flying cars due to 1. A better/cheaper solution for vertical stacking of transport is the boring one[0].
> Particularly with strong AI the proposal comes up often: why not create a sandbox? Let the risk takers run their experiments and insulate the general public from their consequences.
With strong AI this proposal is particularly dumb for all the reasons covered under the search terms of "AI alignment problem", "AI control problem" and "unfriendly AI".
> Allocate a few abandoned oil rigs off the coast of Venezuela and let anyone with a rocket design attempt a launch ;)
See: Copenhagen Suborbitals. If you want to experiment with aerospace, it's generally doable, though expensive due to the nature of the task (and the fact that the difference between an orbital rocket and an ICBM is only in payload).
--
[0] - https://www.boringcompany.com