<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: On Permissionless Innovation	</title>
	<atom:link href="/2018/07/11/on-permissionless-innovation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>/2018/07/11/on-permissionless-innovation/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2018 08:25:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: John McCreery		</title>
		<link>/2018/07/11/on-permissionless-innovation/comment-page-1/#comment-915</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John McCreery]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2018 08:25:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://anthrodendum.org/?p=1403#comment-915</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Phrasing the argument in terms of regulation falls straight into a political trap. Given a choice between “Freedom!” and regulation by a Nanny State seen with some justice as bloated, incompetent and firmly in the grip of special interests,  the two sides instantly polarize and the argument for more regulation must fight an uphill battle. A more productive starting point might be the distinction explicated in Robert Kuttner’s &lt;em&gt;Everything for Sale&lt;/em&gt; (and buttressed, though not explicitly, by George Soros’ &lt;em&gt;Open Society&lt;/em&gt;) that we need to start from the difference between public and private goods, those essential for equal opportunity and human decency (good education, healthcare, a basic income, good public transportation, and Internet/WordWideWeb access are possible candidates) and those that are optional (everything else from soft drinks to haute couture and private jets).  The issue shifts from regulatory restriction to basic human rights and substantive arguments that cut across established categories. Should, for example, cosmetic surgery be a right and, if so, under what circumstances?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Phrasing the argument in terms of regulation falls straight into a political trap. Given a choice between “Freedom!” and regulation by a Nanny State seen with some justice as bloated, incompetent and firmly in the grip of special interests,  the two sides instantly polarize and the argument for more regulation must fight an uphill battle. A more productive starting point might be the distinction explicated in Robert Kuttner’s <em>Everything for Sale</em> (and buttressed, though not explicitly, by George Soros’ <em>Open Society</em>) that we need to start from the difference between public and private goods, those essential for equal opportunity and human decency (good education, healthcare, a basic income, good public transportation, and Internet/WordWideWeb access are possible candidates) and those that are optional (everything else from soft drinks to haute couture and private jets).  The issue shifts from regulatory restriction to basic human rights and substantive arguments that cut across established categories. Should, for example, cosmetic surgery be a right and, if so, under what circumstances?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
