The brilliance of the Friedman anecdote is that it reveals something Higher-Life-Form types like Nitin Gadkari, who propose to save you with the wonderful power

The brilliance of the Friedman anecdote is that it reveals something Higher-Life-Form types like Nitin Gadkari, who propose to save you with the wonderful power of regulation, miss. What they miss is that in their world there's no logically sound riposte to Friedman's question. It should be spoons. Teaspoons, even. Creates more jobs. But actually what works is, perhaps, shovels. And then, if you can afford it, earth-moving equipment. Who says shovels are best? Prices say shovels are best. And then, later, prices say earth-moving equipment is best. You don't have to be a Randian absolutist to conclude that governments inevitably distort outcomes and impoverish people, even at the margin, when they control prices. I think what is implicit in a move like Gadkari's is a belief that the idea of a "market-clearing price" is an economic textbook proposal that one is free to adopt or not adopt. In fact these concepts are not theories but reality-reflecting lenses. Prices are actual facts. The ban on driverless cars will create grey markets, criminals, cartelize commercial driving, artificially enhance transport costs, and, perhaps most insidiously, marginally nudge a young man or woman on the edge of deciding between (say) driving and doing a Masters degree, to drive.