But not for me

In Paul David's utopian vision, as we've seen, others should have their ideas scrutinized by the authorities;

One thing that public policy could do is to try to delay the market from committing to the future inextricably, before enough information has been obtained about the likely technical or organizational and legal implications, of an early, precedent-setting decision. 

So much for ye.  But, reading a little further down in this amazing proposal, we see that David doesn't think his own ideas should be treated with any such delay;

Once the concept and the ideas surrounding path dependence are properly understood, there can be no reason to construe them as necessarily corrupting the discipline of economics, or to fear that once admitted they would be subversive of all laissez-faire policies. There simply are no good grounds to go on actively resisting these ideas.... Nor is there even a sound precautionary case for seeking to contain their spread until it can be determined what would become of the grand edifice of economic analysis as we know it....

After all, he's a scholar...disinterested...wanting only the best for mankind. Time's a wastin'.