“It used to be that much of science and engineering was driven by technology: whoever had the biggest particle accelerator or the fastest computer had an advantage. From now on, information will be just as important as technology: whoever has access to the most information will make the most discoveries and create the most exciting new products.”  — Professor Ousterhout.

Translation: You better keep reading Sharkride!

I’ve been thinking a bit about rules lately.  These thoughts are still developing – would appreciate any feedback.  In a civil society, there have to have some rules, or else there would be anarchy, but rules should be effective and not destructive.  How do you create rules that represent the wishes of the vast majority of people?  If the people really had any power in the governing process, don’t you think there might be a more effective balance between risk and convenience, to improve the overall experience of passing through airport security by not having to remove your shoes, for instance?  We’re the only country in the world that requires folks to remove their shoes at airport security…  What would happen if we had radical open sourced and transparent rule making?  A giant “Wikipedia meets digg” for regulation. Do you think then we would have a 1,200 page healthcare plan that nobody understands?

[previous related post - government 2.0 here.]

Some would say that the regulatory authorities failed the American people by not effectively regulating the financial industry, which led to our current financial crisis.  But, if we have too many rules (like Sarbanes Oxley) the regulation can stifle innovation.  What if we simply let the irresponsible players fail, and allowed some of the smaller players that actually acted responsibly to pick up the slack, and reap the rewards of their prudent behavior?

Wouldn’t the risk of institutional failure and personal bankruptcy be a more effective deterrence of irresponsibility, than regulation, and the promise of bailouts, if you take irresponsible risks and fail (again)?

I witnessed a passenger attempting to board a plane yesterday, who had an abnormally small purse, and an abnormally small carry-on. But, she had a 3rd “carry on,” a zip locked bag with her diabetic medication.  The gate agent told her she could not carry three bags on, and had to stuff her meds into her carry on, even though overall she had far less less luggage than most people. The diabetic medication didn’t fit in her small bag, and the gate agent told her firmly, “Mam, you’re going to have to make it fit.” That’s a ridiculous example of rules gone awry.

Our regulatory environment should also reflect the natural principles of diversity and resilience.  I guess that’s a topic for another post.

And, a yet a 3rd future post about what Thomas Edison said: “There ain’t no rules around here. We’re trying to accomplish something.”

Finally, when can personal judgment trump “the rules?”

Thanks in advance for any feedback!

I believe that the government can have an important role in fostering innovation through investment, but not sure this government investment makes sense (announced yesterday). Isn’t it putting the cart before the horse? It seems to me the bigger problem is not having cheap, renewable energy.  If we can figure that out (and we’re getting closer every day), and consumers have the capability to power their cars with an energy source that’s cheaper than gas, the consumers are going to demand electric cars (or maybe hydrogen fuel cell cars are better…), and no tax payer money would be needed for their development.