I think this is funny...because it's a debate that would not have existed 25 years ago. Why it is so silly is down to a few people. Let's review.
It's 1999. The new year will introduce the 2000s. Paypal is just launching, so nobody knows the name Elon Musk. The prevalent notion in the world is that the offshoring of manufacturing, and switching the US to a service economy is going great, as long as we get cheap labor to make nearly everything, the price of goods has remained almost static despite inflation. All of this is to say the economy is rolling, we have space shuttles, and our government has a budget that is balanced with some space missions. Anyone with half a brain ignores the quotes from NASA, because they make milspec look like a dream.
The thing with NASA though, is that they are a robust government organization. They spend months training anyone who is going to go up into space. They spend hundreds of thousands of dollars creating specifications for a bolt, and they do all of this because the immense investment into the technology pays out in the civilian sector. Tang's a product of minimizing weight by removing excess fluids...microwave ovens are now a commodity good rather than a huge investment...etc... NASA's payback is pretty high, given the tech development is still there.
Flash forward 10 years. The cracks are showing. In 2011 the only remaining shuttles are decomissioned...so private industry reaches out as "the savior of the program." They pull ancient soviet rockets from a nearly forgotten base, combine them with modern tech, and wind-up selling this magic to NASA and the US government as a way "that the private sector can more efficiently provide space flight as a service than NASA ever did." The obvious catch is that they charged slightly less than the cost of old flights (adjusted for inflation), while soaking up billions in grants. It's like buying a plane ticket that's cheaper when you only look at the 60% you paid in cash, and ignoring the 40% paid in credit.
Now, you are experimenting. Not in the traditional sense...you're rebuilding old tech and cutting costs constantly to try and find the point where things fail...and thus where you cannot cut corners anymore. Again, Musk's SpaceX is a company using a fusion of old US and USSR tech...with modern control systems. In car terms, this is adding a shiny new ECU to control a 1980's era big block engine. Your experiments blow up a lot of rockets...but that's "part of the process" according to new tech development. Of course...you fail to reveal that the booster return tech allows you to recycle them...costing nearly as much to scan, verify, and recertify as it does to produce a whole new booster. You cannot get human certified because of your failure rate, which is a cost cutting effort, because if anybody did the math and calculated government was more efficient at this endeavour it'd be a black eye to the supposition that you started this whole mess with. The thing is, they can keep you in red tape to try and stop you from killing people needlessly...and to that you cry out that innovation is being stifled because of rules. It's the sociopathic response to people being displeased with your insanity.
All of this can be summed up though. Rules are neither good nor bad. Too many can be stifling...but the "go fast and break crap" style on engineering is generally paid for in blood. Developed economies generally see paying for things in blood as too expensive. People who bemoan rules often don't understand where they are coming from, so it's easy to see the slowing of development as only a bad thing. My personal opinion is that if SpaceX lost 50% of its grants and awards, they were given to a parallel independent company, and they were forced to actually compete, there's be a lot less whining. Right now, the promise of "private companies can do things more efficient" is a joke, because SpaceX is a government supported monopoly. Hint-hint, if Musk found this with DOGE it'd be something he immediately cut funding to...but what's a little hypocrisy?
Ironically enough, I believe that in many cases over-regulation is a problem. Years of testing for new drugs makes companies more prone to keeping old ones with minor repackages. Aircraft come from basically one of 4 companies, despite being able to fabricate your own for years. OSHA has enough regulations to basically write you a ticket for something no matter what your facility has done to prevent harm to workers. Despite that, I would suggest the oversight on SpaceX is reasonable.
If you want to know why Musk in particular is a broker of BS, that needs to be regulated, then let's see:
1) All of the Cybertruck drama...from the failures through the absolute BS promises, and insano pricing versus what he promised
2) Hyperloop is as simple as an air hockey table in a vacuum tube. Seriously, he said this.
3) How is Hyperloop doing? Boring company now. Oh, they must be more efficient than a regular one. Less, and more expensive you say. Only one project completed in Vegas you say. Said tunnel requires drivers to drive along a tube that is one car width wide you say. It's like the trains already present in the Pittsburgh airport since the 80's...but crappier you say. Wow...Hyperloop is a joke. How much funding? More than $800 million and nothing to show. Jeeze...
4) So, Boring company is out of the loop. Cybertruck is a safety monstrosity. SpaceX is a gigantic tax fund black hole. But, there's a redeeming thing with Tesla, right? Full self driving has been promised since 2016. It's the "you can nap in your car" kind. That had to change everything...right? Not legal you say? Blows through red lights and stop signs you say? Must have a driver watching it in 2025 you say.
5) Good God, the "robots." The people is weird costumes demonstrating what he thought they'd have the ability to do...and tried to sell Tesla on being capable of producing these in the near future. No demonstration of bots. He sold robotics on people in costumers pantomiming robotic movement.
There is a world where Elon didn't open his mouth, promise magic, and delivered solid tech. If this were the case, then I'd say regulation was unreasonable and we should review the restrictions. The thing is, because this came from Elon's mouth, I think it's some flavor of crap. Elon has made a career out of pretending to be Nikola Tesla, practicing the business of governmental grift to pay for his excesses, developed the cult following of Apple, and been perpetually late to underdeliver like your local governmental run road construction project. That requires he be watched, so he doesn't go full snake oil salesman on our money.
