What do you think?
Rate this book
Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom
What policy vision will govern the future of technological innovation? Will innovators be forced to constantly seek the blessing of public officials before they develop and deploy new devices and services, or will they be generally left free to experiment with new technologies and business models? In this book, Adam Thierer argues that if the former disposition (“the precautionary principle”) trumps the latter (“permissionless innovation”), the result will be fewer services, lower quality goods, higher prices, diminished economic growth, and a decline in the overall standard of living. When public policy is shaped by “precautionary principle” reasoning, it poses a serious threat to technological progress, economic entrepreneurialism, and long-run prosperity. By contrast, “permissionless innovation” has been the secret sauce that fueled the success of the Internet and much of the modern tech economy in recent years, and it is set to power the next great industrial revolution—if we let it.
106 pages, Paperback
First published March 10, 2014
14 people are currently reading
170 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
May 19, 2024
~2017 - Very good, short book.
Excellent logic and examples illuminating the huge downsides of the rising ethic of the "precautionary principle" - which says the government should stop innovations unless all precautions are taken to prove there will be no harm for any new innovation - ahead of time.
Implementing this principle eliminates all innovation and kills a free and dynamic society with this "static" mentality, that can never truly be implemented, but creates massive damage the more rigorously it is tried.
The author, Adam Thierer is a very clever writer and uses some wonderful alliteration throughout. Here are a few of my favorites:
".. prophylactic regulation of technology can be Costly, Complicated, and overly Constraining."
"the better approach might be labeled "Educate and Empower,..."
"Markets are more nimble than Mandates.."
"Principle-minded Pundits..."
Fun stuff, amid the profound analysis and facts.
Three of his key sources for inspiration and references should be much better known and referenced, so I was very happy to see them well noted in this book:
Friedrich Hayek
Virginia Postrel
Aaron Wildavsky
He also does a very good job of explaining the private, voluntary methods used to deal with the changes, not all positive, that innovation brings. These are crucial for effective defenders of freedom to understand and be able to explain. For as he rightly states: a " 'just get over it' attitude toward the challenges sometimes posed by technological change is never wise. In fact, it is downright insulting." Convincing people that private, voluntary methods of the market, civil society and healthy attitudes about risk are better, and will get them more of what they really want than the coercion embedded in government regulation, seems a much more productive future course of action.
Other positive traits of private, voluntary systems to deal with the risks of innovation:
- bottom-up
- speedy
- resilient
- extensive international cooperation
- efficient and appropriate costs expended
Typical traits of government using the precautionary principle with laws and regulations:
- top-down
- bureaucratic
- political
- inflexible
- costly
- slow
- stifling
- counterproductive
- limited and costly international cooperation, if any at all
I highly recommend the book to anyone who thinks the government "protects us" from scary stuff.
2021-04-04 updated mostly for typos and style and again lightly: 2024-05-19
Excellent logic and examples illuminating the huge downsides of the rising ethic of the "precautionary principle" - which says the government should stop innovations unless all precautions are taken to prove there will be no harm for any new innovation - ahead of time.
Implementing this principle eliminates all innovation and kills a free and dynamic society with this "static" mentality, that can never truly be implemented, but creates massive damage the more rigorously it is tried.
The author, Adam Thierer is a very clever writer and uses some wonderful alliteration throughout. Here are a few of my favorites:
".. prophylactic regulation of technology can be Costly, Complicated, and overly Constraining."
"the better approach might be labeled "Educate and Empower,..."
"Markets are more nimble than Mandates.."
"Principle-minded Pundits..."
Fun stuff, amid the profound analysis and facts.
Three of his key sources for inspiration and references should be much better known and referenced, so I was very happy to see them well noted in this book:
Friedrich Hayek
Virginia Postrel
Aaron Wildavsky
He also does a very good job of explaining the private, voluntary methods used to deal with the changes, not all positive, that innovation brings. These are crucial for effective defenders of freedom to understand and be able to explain. For as he rightly states: a " 'just get over it' attitude toward the challenges sometimes posed by technological change is never wise. In fact, it is downright insulting." Convincing people that private, voluntary methods of the market, civil society and healthy attitudes about risk are better, and will get them more of what they really want than the coercion embedded in government regulation, seems a much more productive future course of action.
Other positive traits of private, voluntary systems to deal with the risks of innovation:
- bottom-up
- speedy
- resilient
- extensive international cooperation
- efficient and appropriate costs expended
Typical traits of government using the precautionary principle with laws and regulations:
- top-down
- bureaucratic
- political
- inflexible
- costly
- slow
- stifling
- counterproductive
- limited and costly international cooperation, if any at all
I highly recommend the book to anyone who thinks the government "protects us" from scary stuff.
2021-04-04 updated mostly for typos and style and again lightly: 2024-05-19
October 20, 2020
Thierer's paper contains a short but powerful thesis that offers a coherent libertarian vision of innovation policy. Unfortunately, it is somewhat sketchy and fails to seriously tackle some issues that need tackling. It is somewhat rigid in its commitment to freedom at all cost. That said, I like the idea of "permissionless innovation" very much. In fact, I have used the concept in my own research. It encapsulates the core idea of the liberal approach to innovation. Thierer applies it to technological innovation but it can be applied across the board to all areas of innovation.
The central idea of the permissionless innovation framework is to rely on bottom-up experimental solutions as the source of resilience and adaptation. In other words, "to the maximum extent possible, the default position toward technological experimentation should be innovation allowed, or permissionless innovation. If we hope to prosper both as individuals and as a society, we must defend the general freedom to experiment and learn through trial and error, and even to fail frequently while doing so." (p. 18) It is contrasted with the precautionary principle approach where the default position is in favour of the status quo and against spontaneous innovation. He argues that people should not have to ask for permission before they can engage in innovation.
As a policy paper with an agenda, I might rate it four stars. But as an academic, I judge it somewhat harshly on its merits alone. To start with, the paper is not especially academic, since a lot of the references are to blogs and popular articles. But to his credit, the author cites people like Virginia Postrel and her book The Future and Its Enemies: The Growing Conflict Over Creativity, Enterprise, and Progress. Secondly, there is too little effort made to respond to the best versions of opposing positions: most controversies are brushed aside rather too easily and dismissed as "panics". But I think that Thierer should have spent more time analyzing existential risks such as nuclear holocaust or A.I. apocalypse. After all, before you can flourish and reach for the "best scenario" outcomes, you first need to SURVIVE. If we aim for optimality without regard for the possibility of ruin, we are going to shoot ourselves in the foot. It seems to me that we should not have permissionless innovation in areas of life where such "Black Swan" events may wipe out the entire human race or at least seriously hamper our ability to live a decent life. Lastly, there very little discussion of the role of intellectual property rights in generating, aside from various positive social effects, many inequalities, unfreedoms, and monopolies. Should IP rights be strengthened or weakened in order to facilitate permissionless innovation? It is not clear. Changing technologies involve reinterpretations of concepts like "property rights", "freedom", and "autonomy", and libertarians need to do some hard work to make the case for freedom contemporary.
I have argued that the paper is somewhat lacking in its engagement with the serious risks that technologies may pose. It is therefore not entirely satisfactory as an argument for "comprehensive technological freedom." That said, the central pillar of the argument is suggestive: we should allow the free market to generate creative solutions to our problems since centralized plans by regulators are likely to be stifling, reactionary, and often in error. As the paper emphasizes, we should shift our emphasis on the development of evolutionary and adaptationist resilience, based on trial and error experimentation from the bottom up, as a vital component of any policy platform.
The central idea of the permissionless innovation framework is to rely on bottom-up experimental solutions as the source of resilience and adaptation. In other words, "to the maximum extent possible, the default position toward technological experimentation should be innovation allowed, or permissionless innovation. If we hope to prosper both as individuals and as a society, we must defend the general freedom to experiment and learn through trial and error, and even to fail frequently while doing so." (p. 18) It is contrasted with the precautionary principle approach where the default position is in favour of the status quo and against spontaneous innovation. He argues that people should not have to ask for permission before they can engage in innovation.
As a policy paper with an agenda, I might rate it four stars. But as an academic, I judge it somewhat harshly on its merits alone. To start with, the paper is not especially academic, since a lot of the references are to blogs and popular articles. But to his credit, the author cites people like Virginia Postrel and her book The Future and Its Enemies: The Growing Conflict Over Creativity, Enterprise, and Progress. Secondly, there is too little effort made to respond to the best versions of opposing positions: most controversies are brushed aside rather too easily and dismissed as "panics". But I think that Thierer should have spent more time analyzing existential risks such as nuclear holocaust or A.I. apocalypse. After all, before you can flourish and reach for the "best scenario" outcomes, you first need to SURVIVE. If we aim for optimality without regard for the possibility of ruin, we are going to shoot ourselves in the foot. It seems to me that we should not have permissionless innovation in areas of life where such "Black Swan" events may wipe out the entire human race or at least seriously hamper our ability to live a decent life. Lastly, there very little discussion of the role of intellectual property rights in generating, aside from various positive social effects, many inequalities, unfreedoms, and monopolies. Should IP rights be strengthened or weakened in order to facilitate permissionless innovation? It is not clear. Changing technologies involve reinterpretations of concepts like "property rights", "freedom", and "autonomy", and libertarians need to do some hard work to make the case for freedom contemporary.
I have argued that the paper is somewhat lacking in its engagement with the serious risks that technologies may pose. It is therefore not entirely satisfactory as an argument for "comprehensive technological freedom." That said, the central pillar of the argument is suggestive: we should allow the free market to generate creative solutions to our problems since centralized plans by regulators are likely to be stifling, reactionary, and often in error. As the paper emphasizes, we should shift our emphasis on the development of evolutionary and adaptationist resilience, based on trial and error experimentation from the bottom up, as a vital component of any policy platform.
July 11, 2016
The fundamental premise of Adam Thierer's book "Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom" is sound. It is important to avoid pre-emptive regulation that will discourage innovation. Thierer's additional suggestions of applying existing laws first and creating sunset clauses for regulations deemed absolutely necessary are also reasonable.
The book is well-researched and heavily cited, lending credibility to his claims, however less repetition and some additional examples early on would be helpful. It is important also to emphasize the degree to which regulation not only impedes innovation, but also creates a powerful incentive for existing market leaders to protect themselves from disruptive competition through lobbying. Licensed monopoly taxis vs. Uber, for example.
In reality, government regulation is not just problematic in terms of restricting new technologies, it also is used to pervert existing ones. This book suggests that governments should engage in education, but that is a scary prospect. I remember the food pyramids that were taught to me in government schools that encouraged a highly politicized, unhealthy balance of food groups. As the political influencers changed, the "official" recommendations for consumption also adjusted radically, though not necessarily in the interest of the common man.
In short, the general message of avoiding pre-emptive regulation based on worst-case scenarios is sound, but the book could more effectively use real examples like the Skype v. FWD to demonstrate their case. It should go further, however to underline how regulation is perverted by interest groups, both scaremongers such as Greenpeace and vested interests.
It may be beyond the purposes of the book, but it could also touch on the constitutionality of such regulations. By limiting national regulation per the Constitution, state regulations on innovation FORCE cost benefit analyses because if, for example, a state like New York restricts fracking, states such as North Dakota can profit from that choice by allowing it. Inter-state competition enforces regulatory due diligence. National regulation stifles regulatory competition. The emphasis should not only be on how government regulation dangerously reduces quality of life by impeding innovation, but how such government intervention is both immoral and unconstitutional.
Finally, it may be helpful to underline as well the risks of government involvement in innovation. When government sponsors research (e.g., Solyndra), foreign aid (e.g., Poverty Inc.), healthcare (e.g., ObamaCare), education (e.g., Common Core) or higher education research grants (e.g., Global Warming/Cooling hysteria), resources are diverted from more promising technologies and innovations.
The book is well-researched and heavily cited, lending credibility to his claims, however less repetition and some additional examples early on would be helpful. It is important also to emphasize the degree to which regulation not only impedes innovation, but also creates a powerful incentive for existing market leaders to protect themselves from disruptive competition through lobbying. Licensed monopoly taxis vs. Uber, for example.
In reality, government regulation is not just problematic in terms of restricting new technologies, it also is used to pervert existing ones. This book suggests that governments should engage in education, but that is a scary prospect. I remember the food pyramids that were taught to me in government schools that encouraged a highly politicized, unhealthy balance of food groups. As the political influencers changed, the "official" recommendations for consumption also adjusted radically, though not necessarily in the interest of the common man.
In short, the general message of avoiding pre-emptive regulation based on worst-case scenarios is sound, but the book could more effectively use real examples like the Skype v. FWD to demonstrate their case. It should go further, however to underline how regulation is perverted by interest groups, both scaremongers such as Greenpeace and vested interests.
It may be beyond the purposes of the book, but it could also touch on the constitutionality of such regulations. By limiting national regulation per the Constitution, state regulations on innovation FORCE cost benefit analyses because if, for example, a state like New York restricts fracking, states such as North Dakota can profit from that choice by allowing it. Inter-state competition enforces regulatory due diligence. National regulation stifles regulatory competition. The emphasis should not only be on how government regulation dangerously reduces quality of life by impeding innovation, but how such government intervention is both immoral and unconstitutional.
Finally, it may be helpful to underline as well the risks of government involvement in innovation. When government sponsors research (e.g., Solyndra), foreign aid (e.g., Poverty Inc.), healthcare (e.g., ObamaCare), education (e.g., Common Core) or higher education research grants (e.g., Global Warming/Cooling hysteria), resources are diverted from more promising technologies and innovations.
March 9, 2018
Thierer provides an excellent overview of the importance of a bottom up approach of regulating things through markets instead of a top down approach by government. The assumption should always be freedom through permissionless innovation.
Arguments for regulation are usually based on the precautionary principle whereby the government chooses that it’s better to be safe than sorry regardless of potential costs.
Permissionless innovation that works alongside creative destruction is what’s supported substantial economic prosperity and should by advanced as much as possible.
I give this quick read 4 stars.
Arguments for regulation are usually based on the precautionary principle whereby the government chooses that it’s better to be safe than sorry regardless of potential costs.
Permissionless innovation that works alongside creative destruction is what’s supported substantial economic prosperity and should by advanced as much as possible.
I give this quick read 4 stars.
December 28, 2016
Solid policy prescriptions from a permissionless innovation perspective, although I would have liked for Thierer to spend a bit more time discussing genetic modification as it has been linked so often to the precautionary principle.
August 25, 2017
3.5 stars
May 4, 2014
Centralized planning and control cannot anticipate all of the good or bad consequences of actions, and likewise, legal and regulatory controls over new technologies lag behind and most often get things wrong the more they try to control things as they are developing.
The author says that reactionaries and technocratic progressives both tend to want to control or restrict new technology developments and are prone to use scare tactics to create techno-panics about the dystopian possibilities. Reactionaries yearn for social stability or at least the status-quo, whereas progressives want to tightly control development to ensure it has "fair" consequences for society.
Whether you buy this underlying motive or not, there are many groups who act according to the "precautionary principle," where new technologies must pass their test before they will bless it to proceed. These groups want to beat all the possible imagined harms out of something before they will allow development.
The author contrasts this with the way most innovation in the US has proceeded (up to a point)--permissionless innovation. He highlights many forms of retroactive protections extant in law, such as tort and other forms of liability, holding would-be innovators responsible for real--versus potential or imaginary harm. It also provides incentives to steadily improve the safety, privacy, and social good provided by the innovation. He also claims that bottom-up adaption and assimilation are far superior to top-down, broad bureaucratic controls, and that people have demonstrated resilience and acceptance while experts predicted panic in the past (photography, telephones, etc.)
Permissionless innovation allows innovators and society to rapidly develop and coevolve with new technologies that would be impeded indefinitely under the precautionary principle, particularly since many major advances disrupted many businesses and powerful people in the past. The worst thing about the precautionary principle is its ability to be hijacked by powerful people who could turn the entire economy to serve their interests.
The author says that reactionaries and technocratic progressives both tend to want to control or restrict new technology developments and are prone to use scare tactics to create techno-panics about the dystopian possibilities. Reactionaries yearn for social stability or at least the status-quo, whereas progressives want to tightly control development to ensure it has "fair" consequences for society.
Whether you buy this underlying motive or not, there are many groups who act according to the "precautionary principle," where new technologies must pass their test before they will bless it to proceed. These groups want to beat all the possible imagined harms out of something before they will allow development.
The author contrasts this with the way most innovation in the US has proceeded (up to a point)--permissionless innovation. He highlights many forms of retroactive protections extant in law, such as tort and other forms of liability, holding would-be innovators responsible for real--versus potential or imaginary harm. It also provides incentives to steadily improve the safety, privacy, and social good provided by the innovation. He also claims that bottom-up adaption and assimilation are far superior to top-down, broad bureaucratic controls, and that people have demonstrated resilience and acceptance while experts predicted panic in the past (photography, telephones, etc.)
Permissionless innovation allows innovators and society to rapidly develop and coevolve with new technologies that would be impeded indefinitely under the precautionary principle, particularly since many major advances disrupted many businesses and powerful people in the past. The worst thing about the precautionary principle is its ability to be hijacked by powerful people who could turn the entire economy to serve their interests.
October 17, 2016
Very good synopsis of the innovation policy and good forecast. Only thing it needed was personal stories from the innovators or from individuals whose lives were changed for the better by the innovations.
March 16, 2016
A serviceable introduction to the problems with regulation in general, and tech regulation specifically.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews