Ghengis the engineer wrote (excerpted, capitolization is Nick's for emphasis):
what in your opinion is the practical JUSTIFICATION for ALLOWING experimentation without design and testing control?, does it allow a better design to be reached quicker?, what is the safety record like? does the FAA accept data from UNQUALIFIED individuals in final approval of a mod or whole aircraft type?
Or is it really a plea from people who won't admit that they simply don't have the ability to comply with safety regulations?
Nick answers:
I certainly understand the wish to save people from their own stupidity (I support helmet laws and seat belt requirements, for example). I do oppose the concept of R&D being controlled by an august board of "esxperts" who know more than anyone else how and where to search for new answers. The capitolized words illustrate how deeply into the problem Ghengis's thoughts are.
Note the need to ALLOW someone to build something. Note that the burden of JUSTIFICATION is on the individual to show why he should be foolish enough to even dream of being smarter than the GOVERNMENT. Note the need to prove one's QUALIFICATIONS before one can be fortunate enough to actually practice any research! Neat concept.
Ghengis asks if this novel idea of free thought could lead to better R&D. I note that Igor Sikorsky, Art Young and Frank Whittle were thought a bit bonkers when the started out. The innovators in medical, communications, computer and many other scientific fields are too often not "expert" enough. Please review the Wright brothers detractors, as an example. It is human nature to explore, to innovate, and to risk where the rewards and challenges are great.
I believe one needs the Government's permission to build a flying machine only to the extent that it might become a public endangerment. One need not have to expose the design to any group of experts for other reasons, and it would be a terrific damper on our technological growth if that attitude were allowed to exist everywhere.
Once the design has matured, if it is to be sold for public consumption and at public risk, it must be independantly tested and approved, I certainly agree, but while it is in the hands of its inventor, let he or she bear some risk, as long as I don't have to involuntarily share it!
This seems to me to be not particularly libertarian, it is simply a basic tennent of government - govern only where needed.