Re: It's those evil lawyers
yes, libertarians just want as few laws as possible, certainly NOT the "cluster-FEEL" that we often get, nor the "anarchy" that libertarians are claimed to want.
I'm a libertarian, and I recognize the need for laws. You just don't want to go too far with them, that's all.
Example: recent shooting in Nevada. The bodies hadn't even assumed ambient temperature before Demo-rat politicians were out SCREAMING about "gun control" [like THAT would have helped]. It's typical of the left (and sometimes the extreme right) to "leave NO tragedy UNEXPLOITED politically".
So after ONE major accident involving a robot driver, "gummint MUST regulate". Well, be very careful applying the regulations, because gummint generally does NOT know excrement from shoe polish about ANY kind of tech [I'm sure most people agree with this] and the LAST thing we need is GUMMINT sticking their gummy little digits into the business of engineers and scientists, catering at random to whatever political WHIM is popular these days, and with the #1 motive of "getting elected" being behind EVERY law and regulation they excrete.
That of course doesn't mean that gummint should NOT regulate. I think reasonable limits, such as certification tests, minimal safety standards, and the *kinds* of hoops that a new drug has to go through to be approved, would make sense. So maybe there's the equivalent of 'FDA' approving self-driving cars, to make sure that human lives are protected, both inside AND outside of the vehicle. THAT kind of thing.
That, and the "I already mentioned them" liability laws, as an additional incentive to get it RIGHT. Similar laws already exist for U.S. cars (to prevent exploding gas tanks, for one). So yeah, just a bit more of "that", specifically related to robo-cars, and we're good to go.
"light touch" when done properly will MAXIMIZE the industry's opportunity. People will be more confident in the new tech, and gummint wouldn't be in the way [or requiring corrupt kick-backs under the table].