You’d think that this book would be catnip for me: The premise (compliance and security theatre has grown way too much, rules like that are good at preventing some accidents but not others, give people some agency and watch how they’ll make much better decisions!) is solid, after all. You’d think. I ended up not finishing this book, because I have limited time on this planet and don’t need to spend it being angry at this guy’s tone. It’s just so know-it-all, talking down to the presumably stupid reader (Chapter 5 is just explaining Goodheart’s Law. Chapter 9 out of 10 is “lays out the difference between anarchy and anarchism”), and so extremely impressed with itself. Chapter 2 is about "who has the right to rule / make these rules". Chapter 1 opens "this is not a political book". Angery noises.