Trade secrets are a much better way for everybody involved to deal with inventions/innovations rather than any patents and copyrights, it forces the society to work more and to produce more and it doesn't let anybody have a government created monopoly.
1. It's like having control over any resource, it puts the owner into position of power.
2. It's not patented, so nobody is prevented from reinventing it, thus it's already better than what's happening now for society at large.
3. Once you die, there is really nothing to worry about. Nothing matters to you once you are dead, and everybody dies, so eventually everything becomes worthless to everybody.
4. There is a huge difference between amount of capital one has. A trillion is clearly better than a billion, etc., that's simple math, again, it puts you into position of more control.
5. By proving the fact that this technology can exist, the market only creates even more opportunities, people enter that same market in search of the solution, and it's likely that they will find this solution or something different, which actually will benefit the society more than having one solution.
6. Clearly I am talking about power, control, ability to corner the market for some time while others are looking for the same solution or better / different solutions. I don't believe in charity in business.
7. As to pharma - this is an issue of copyrights and patents. In fact this is a completely opposite case and neither you, nor the other poster understand this. Patents and copyrights (and government, as in FDA and other agencies) create the situation in pharma, where it is profitable NOT to look for new solutions, because others are prevented from looking into solutions due to the high barriers of entry set by government in every way, especially patents, copyrights and regulations.
I see trade secrets as the BEST solution for the society in fact, because nobody is prevented from looking for that same solution, nobody can be forced into any licensing agreements, there is more opportunity to develop better / different solutions.
If one person creates / invents something, it's likely others will do too, and patents/copyrights and licenses are in fact barriers to entry into the market and methods of prevention of effective distribution of the solution.
With a trade secret and no patents/copyrights, one has to be in a hurry to develop solutions and corner the market before others find the same or different/similar solutions and enter the market.
This is the principle by which the FREE market operates as opposed to controlled, manipulated market, so anybody making comments on 'mental health' should examine his own levels of understanding or intelligence.
So creating a new technology and allowing others to use it exactly when they need it is 'raping somebody and bleeding them dry'. I need to use that somewhere.
How is creating a new innovative product and releasing it to the market in a timely manner, while people are looking for that exact solution is "hurting people"? I am now wondering about your mental health.
If there is a working prototype then securing a private source of funding for a cut of profit is ridiculously easy.
And yes, controlling something like that is enormously lucrative and rewarding in more ways than just money, so clearly, it's not a good idea at all to patent it and license it to anybody, it is much better to rent the equipment out, there would be no shortage of willing participants.
Biggest trucks that we have, locomotives, cranes, ships, diesel and coal electrical generators, heat generators, all of this can be replaced by one or more of these 'magic black boxes' that generate electrical power
- obviously when I say "all of this", I mean the sources of power that drive these machines, not the machines themselves.
It's best not to patent it and not to tell anybody how it's done but instead to keep it a trade secret and protect technologically and build the generators, but not sell them yet in the beginning, but instead rent them out to companies.
Biggest trucks that we have, locomotives, cranes, ships, diesel and coal electrical generators, heat generators, all of this can be replaced by one or more of these 'magic black boxes' that generate electrical power, and as long as they can be rented cheaper than it takes to operate and fuel large diesel/gas/coal engines, then the money will come.
Million dollars at that point is absolutely nothing. You are talking hundreds of billions, likely into tens of trillions. If eventually you have a 'black box' that works well with a personal vehicle - a car, a truck, then you have the world in your pocket.
It think the massive fusion reactor he refers to, is the sun - something you CAN tap (albeit with low efficiency currently) and live off the grid.
- yes, Mr. Obvious, thank you. What do you think I meant by:
that work even at night and output enough energy to power vehicles?
1) Monopolies or Government would provide the fuel for small-scale, in-home/vehicle engines, guaranteed.
- as I said, gov't is standing in the way of progress. I own shares in a uranium mine for example, it means I own part of that business and output, it's a private business, though regulated by government.
2) Laws of physics tells us size relates to efficiency, so you better invent something that doesn't pollute. Town/village-based generators might be viable, if you trust your local community.
- we are stuck heating up water with hot nuclear fuel to produce steam and that's what we use to generate electricity, we haven't gotten past that phase and won't as long as government stands on the way of people working on new ideas in that field.
As I said, currently there is no progress in nuclear because government stole people's freedoms to privacy, private property, business and other liberties. Gov't doesn't allow the private sector to experiment and look for better ways of extracting energy from nuclear and you are stuck complaining about the current state of affairs.
but safety aside small reactors are not very efficient or cheap
- yes, and the early computers weren't efficient or cheap. We need innovation in this area obviously, it won't come as long as governments are standing in the way of people trying to improve in this industry.
It makes much more sense to have large scale generation and pump it out to individual devices as we do now, just with better batteries in the case of cars, boats and aircraft.
- no it does not.
The best thing is to be able to live off the grid, not to have to rely on big centralised infrastructure that belongs to monopolies created and maintained by governments. Sort of like it's best not to rely on government monopolies for anything else.
Plus we already have a massive fusion reactor supplying enough energy to power the entire world, so might as well make use of that.
- and this means we shouldn't try and build our own small ones, that work even at night and output enough energy to power vehicles?
Whether this is a hoax or not, it's the right direction. Nuclear and hopeful thermonuclear for use in homes and in vehicles - heavy machinery and private cars, trains, boats, planes and spacecraft.
UPDATE I: Don't be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.
"President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. "The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally."
âoeWe are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,â said Romero. "Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAAâ(TM)s detention authority."
The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable.
There is some controversy on this point, in part because the law as written is entirely too vague. But whether or not the law will be used to indefinitely detain US citizens domestically, it is written to allow the detention of US citizens abroad as well as foreigners without trial.
But the economy is already being destroyed by structural unemployment resulting from robotics and other automation; see:
- aha, and the economy of subsistence farmers was destroyed when the industrial revolution provided the farmers with better implements, tools, automation, chemicals and knowledge for 5% of working people to be able to feed 100% of population.
It's not robotics in any way shape or form, it's government spending, rules, regulations and taxes that cause outflow of investment and of jobs.
The people distributing the viruses were lacking some sort of moral awareness.
- whatever. Good luck spreading 'moral awareness'. I know plenty of people who wouldn't give 2 fucks about moral awareness and would do what it takes to achieve their goals. Their parents may or may not have had anything to do with this, I believe I have seen enough evidence and history to suggest that there will never be enough 'moral awareness' to stop people from doing what they want.
More distributed wealth means more people can work on defenses or deal with emergent problems.
- sure.
A basic income is more likely to break the current world of (wage) slaves and masters we have than to create one:
- nonsense. The current world of slaves and masters has been created exactly by this desire to give up one's responsibilities in exchange for perceived security (be it security against 'terrorist' threats or be it security against economic problems).
People want others to take care of them cradle to grave, and that's where the problem today is - too many people produce too little in their lives to be able to trade for goods that others produce, and that's what poverty is.
Giving people free stuff does not reduce poverty, it creates poverty.
The only thing that people need to reduce poverty is liberty, freedom and rule of law, especially important is the rule of law above government, so that government cannot sacrifice people's liberties and freedoms.
"God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the Towers, but after the situation became unbearableâ"and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanonâ"I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followedâ"when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way: to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."
Within twenty years (if not sooner), I'd expect any disgruntled alienated teenager will be able to download plagues off the internet, tinker with them, and produce them at home. We need to build a society that works a lot better for everyone before then. One only needs to think about teens making computer viruses (which have had real costs to so many people) over the last twenty years and imagine the same happening in the biological realm. Why should it not?
- except this is nonsense.
The people who wrote computer viruses were better educated, intelligent enough and had plenty of resources to spend on things like learning about computers, learning to program and had time to write viruses not because they were LACKING something, many saw it as a good past time and some were looking for fame (even if only among a closed network of similarly minded individuals).
People will build viruses and release them just because they will be able to and nothing will prevent them, no amount of wealth in the world will stop them, and the more resources they will have in their hands the more "interesting" experiments they will be able to devise.
A "basic income" (Social Security and Medicare for all from birth) is part of building a world of advanced technology
- no, desire to live better will build the world of advanced technology. Working, saving and investing will do it. Basic income will create a world of slaves and masters, and part of the slaves will do the work, the masters will oversee the income redistribution and the rest of the slaves will be fed with the work done by the working slaves.
There will be no advanced technology building in that society in the long run, it's going to be an economic disaster as fewer and fewer will work, and eventually people will refuse to work for others, all while those, who actually create jobs will obviously move their investments somewhere, where this insane policies will not apply. The economy will be destroyed.
Seriously, you are asking them to reverse bad legislation that takes away your right to freedom of speech/business/happiness/property while they are in constant process of destroying more of your liberties.
Patriot Act and NDAA are much worse than all of these other issues and Obama just signed NDAA, and it means martial law, it means military will detain you indefinitely, it really means concentration camps for all, including Americans, eventually on American soil too, not just funny looking people from other countries.
Obama isn't interested in your quest for liberty and civility, he is a self imposed dictator at this point, he can kill you wherever you are in the world and he can capture you and torture you, and he can do it because he has huge military in his disposal, that's the extent of the reason behind it - just power and he wants more of it and his handlers want more of it.
In other words, there were many factors to the prosperity.
- all of the prosperity in 19 century that pushed USA out of being a debtor nation to being a creditor nation while inventing and brining to the market all of the products, including safe plentiful cheap food, medicine, clothing, machines, etc., all of this was done with private enterprise that did not have government stacked against it, but it happened at the time of no income taxes, tiny government involvement, steady money (an actual deflationary period in US history). It happened in a period between wars (Civil and WWI).
People were coming to USA to escape their brutal regimes and tyrannical governments, they were coming for freedom, not just freedom of speech and religion but freedom of doing business, and that's how US became the creditor nation, largest producer nation of high quality cheap consumer products.
So the things you like were responsible for the prosperity because you like them
- I like things that create prosperity. So I like washing machines, it's the private sector that invents and creates washing machines. I like coffee machines, same story. I don't understand your assertion at all.
For example, the end of war and the spread of electricity and communications.
- wealth ends wars while poverty starts wars.
Electricity is a product of free market enterprise.
Slashdot Mirror
both of you are still blind to the facts.
I left a comment in this thread, no need to repost.
Trade secrets are a much better way for everybody involved to deal with inventions/innovations rather than any patents and copyrights, it forces the society to work more and to produce more and it doesn't let anybody have a government created monopoly.
both to yourself and to society at large?
-
1. It's like having control over any resource, it puts the owner into position of power.
2. It's not patented, so nobody is prevented from reinventing it, thus it's already better than what's happening now for society at large.
3. Once you die, there is really nothing to worry about. Nothing matters to you once you are dead, and everybody dies, so eventually everything becomes worthless to everybody.
4. There is a huge difference between amount of capital one has. A trillion is clearly better than a billion, etc., that's simple math, again, it puts you into position of more control.
5. By proving the fact that this technology can exist, the market only creates even more opportunities, people enter that same market in search of the solution, and it's likely that they will find this solution or something different, which actually will benefit the society more than having one solution.
6. Clearly I am talking about power, control, ability to corner the market for some time while others are looking for the same solution or better / different solutions. I don't believe in charity in business.
7. As to pharma - this is an issue of copyrights and patents. In fact this is a completely opposite case and neither you, nor the other poster understand this. Patents and copyrights (and government, as in FDA and other agencies) create the situation in pharma, where it is profitable NOT to look for new solutions, because others are prevented from looking into solutions due to the high barriers of entry set by government in every way, especially patents, copyrights and regulations.
I see trade secrets as the BEST solution for the society in fact, because nobody is prevented from looking for that same solution, nobody can be forced into any licensing agreements, there is more opportunity to develop better / different solutions.
If one person creates / invents something, it's likely others will do too, and patents/copyrights and licenses are in fact barriers to entry into the market and methods of prevention of effective distribution of the solution.
With a trade secret and no patents/copyrights, one has to be in a hurry to develop solutions and corner the market before others find the same or different/similar solutions and enter the market.
This is the principle by which the FREE market operates as opposed to controlled, manipulated market, so anybody making comments on 'mental health' should examine his own levels of understanding or intelligence.
So creating a new technology and allowing others to use it exactly when they need it is 'raping somebody and bleeding them dry'. I need to use that somewhere.
How is creating a new innovative product and releasing it to the market in a timely manner, while people are looking for that exact solution is "hurting people"? I am now wondering about your mental health.
the comments on this topic are disgusting, shows something about an average person (and they are voters).
If there is a working prototype then securing a private source of funding for a cut of profit is ridiculously easy.
And yes, controlling something like that is enormously lucrative and rewarding in more ways than just money, so clearly, it's not a good idea at all to patent it and license it to anybody, it is much better to rent the equipment out, there would be no shortage of willing participants.
Biggest trucks that we have, locomotives, cranes, ships, diesel and coal electrical generators, heat generators, all of this can be replaced by one or more of these 'magic black boxes' that generate electrical power
- obviously when I say "all of this", I mean the sources of power that drive these machines, not the machines themselves.
Just for the local pedants and nazis.
It's best not to patent it and not to tell anybody how it's done but instead to keep it a trade secret and protect technologically and build the generators, but not sell them yet in the beginning, but instead rent them out to companies.
Biggest trucks that we have, locomotives, cranes, ships, diesel and coal electrical generators, heat generators, all of this can be replaced by one or more of these 'magic black boxes' that generate electrical power, and as long as they can be rented cheaper than it takes to operate and fuel large diesel/gas/coal engines, then the money will come.
Million dollars at that point is absolutely nothing. You are talking hundreds of billions, likely into tens of trillions. If eventually you have a 'black box' that works well with a personal vehicle - a car, a truck, then you have the world in your pocket.
so what's stopping you?
It think the massive fusion reactor he refers to, is the sun - something you CAN tap (albeit with low efficiency currently) and live off the grid.
- yes, Mr. Obvious, thank you. What do you think I meant by:
that work even at night and output enough energy to power vehicles?
1) Monopolies or Government would provide the fuel for small-scale, in-home/vehicle engines, guaranteed.
- as I said, gov't is standing in the way of progress. I own shares in a uranium mine for example, it means I own part of that business and output, it's a private business, though regulated by government.
2) Laws of physics tells us size relates to efficiency, so you better invent something that doesn't pollute. Town/village-based generators might be viable, if you trust your local community.
- we are stuck heating up water with hot nuclear fuel to produce steam and that's what we use to generate electricity, we haven't gotten past that phase and won't as long as government stands on the way of people working on new ideas in that field.
As I said, currently there is no progress in nuclear because government stole people's freedoms to privacy, private property, business and other liberties. Gov't doesn't allow the private sector to experiment and look for better ways of extracting energy from nuclear and you are stuck complaining about the current state of affairs.
but safety aside small reactors are not very efficient or cheap
- yes, and the early computers weren't efficient or cheap. We need innovation in this area obviously, it won't come as long as governments are standing in the way of people trying to improve in this industry.
It makes much more sense to have large scale generation and pump it out to individual devices as we do now, just with better batteries in the case of cars, boats and aircraft.
- no it does not.
The best thing is to be able to live off the grid, not to have to rely on big centralised infrastructure that belongs to monopolies created and maintained by governments. Sort of like it's best not to rely on government monopolies for anything else.
Plus we already have a massive fusion reactor supplying enough energy to power the entire world, so might as well make use of that.
- and this means we shouldn't try and build our own small ones, that work even at night and output enough energy to power vehicles?
As I said: no refueling.
As in: no refueling.
Lifespan of a vehicle should be less than lifespan of a nuclear power plant installed into it including the fuel.
No refueling.
Whether this is a hoax or not, it's the right direction. Nuclear and hopeful thermonuclear for use in homes and in vehicles - heavy machinery and private cars, trains, boats, planes and spacecraft.
and I am going to provide a retort every time I see your lying propaganda shill, plant and stooge posts appear on /. about this topic.
ACLU
UPDATE I: Don't be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.
--
ACLU: President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law
"President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. "The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally."
âoeWe are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,â said Romero. "Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAAâ(TM)s detention authority."
Huffington Post: History Will Judge Obama On NDAA
Obama's WORTHLESS signing statement
The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable.
--
Forbes: President Obama Signed the National Defense Authorization Act - Now What?
There is some controversy on this point, in part because the law as written is entirely too vague. But whether or not the law will be used to indefinitely detain US citizens domestically, it is written to allow the detention of US citizens abroad as well as foreigners without trial.
First off, the DHS isn't that evil
- yet.
Second off, STASI isn't that bumbling and stupid.
- DHS still has something to learn, sure.
Professor Farnsworth knew it all along, so did Mr. Burns.
But the economy is already being destroyed by structural unemployment resulting from robotics and other automation; see:
- aha, and the economy of subsistence farmers was destroyed when the industrial revolution provided the farmers with better implements, tools, automation, chemicals and knowledge for 5% of working people to be able to feed 100% of population.
It's not robotics in any way shape or form, it's government spending, rules, regulations and taxes that cause outflow of investment and of jobs.
The people distributing the viruses were lacking some sort of moral awareness.
- whatever. Good luck spreading 'moral awareness'. I know plenty of people who wouldn't give 2 fucks about moral awareness and would do what it takes to achieve their goals. Their parents may or may not have had anything to do with this, I believe I have seen enough evidence and history to suggest that there will never be enough 'moral awareness' to stop people from doing what they want.
More distributed wealth means more people can work on defenses or deal with emergent problems.
- sure.
A basic income is more likely to break the current world of (wage) slaves and masters we have than to create one:
- nonsense. The current world of slaves and masters has been created exactly by this desire to give up one's responsibilities in exchange for perceived security (be it security against 'terrorist' threats or be it security against economic problems).
People want others to take care of them cradle to grave, and that's where the problem today is - too many people produce too little in their lives to be able to trade for goods that others produce, and that's what poverty is.
Giving people free stuff does not reduce poverty, it creates poverty.
The only thing that people need to reduce poverty is liberty, freedom and rule of law, especially important is the rule of law above government, so that government cannot sacrifice people's liberties and freedoms.
"God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the Towers, but after the situation became unbearableâ"and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanonâ"I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followedâ"when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way: to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."
---Osama bin Laden, 2004
National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States - this talks about the reasons.
Within twenty years (if not sooner), I'd expect any disgruntled alienated teenager will be able to download plagues off the internet, tinker with them, and produce them at home. We need to build a society that works a lot better for everyone before then. One only needs to think about teens making computer viruses (which have had real costs to so many people) over the last twenty years and imagine the same happening in the biological realm. Why should it not?
- except this is nonsense.
The people who wrote computer viruses were better educated, intelligent enough and had plenty of resources to spend on things like learning about computers, learning to program and had time to write viruses not because they were LACKING something, many saw it as a good past time and some were looking for fame (even if only among a closed network of similarly minded individuals).
People will build viruses and release them just because they will be able to and nothing will prevent them, no amount of wealth in the world will stop them, and the more resources they will have in their hands the more "interesting" experiments they will be able to devise.
A "basic income" (Social Security and Medicare for all from birth) is part of building a world of advanced technology
- no, desire to live better will build the world of advanced technology. Working, saving and investing will do it. Basic income will create a world of slaves and masters, and part of the slaves will do the work, the masters will oversee the income redistribution and the rest of the slaves will be fed with the work done by the working slaves.
There will be no advanced technology building in that society in the long run, it's going to be an economic disaster as fewer and fewer will work, and eventually people will refuse to work for others, all while those, who actually create jobs will obviously move their investments somewhere, where this insane policies will not apply. The economy will be destroyed.
Seriously, you are asking them to reverse bad legislation that takes away your right to freedom of speech/business/happiness/property while they are in constant process of destroying more of your liberties.
Patriot Act and NDAA are much worse than all of these other issues and Obama just signed NDAA, and it means martial law, it means military will detain you indefinitely, it really means concentration camps for all, including Americans, eventually on American soil too, not just funny looking people from other countries.
Obama isn't interested in your quest for liberty and civility, he is a self imposed dictator at this point, he can kill you wherever you are in the world and he can capture you and torture you, and he can do it because he has huge military in his disposal, that's the extent of the reason behind it - just power and he wants more of it and his handlers want more of it.
well, at least Pez dispenser is not a dirty diaper.
In other words, there were many factors to the prosperity.
- all of the prosperity in 19 century that pushed USA out of being a debtor nation to being a creditor nation while inventing and brining to the market all of the products, including safe plentiful cheap food, medicine, clothing, machines, etc., all of this was done with private enterprise that did not have government stacked against it, but it happened at the time of no income taxes, tiny government involvement, steady money (an actual deflationary period in US history). It happened in a period between wars (Civil and WWI).
People were coming to USA to escape their brutal regimes and tyrannical governments, they were coming for freedom, not just freedom of speech and religion but freedom of doing business, and that's how US became the creditor nation, largest producer nation of high quality cheap consumer products.
As to cats, you can try cats.
So the things you like were responsible for the prosperity because you like them
- I like things that create prosperity. So I like washing machines, it's the private sector that invents and creates washing machines. I like coffee machines, same story. I don't understand your assertion at all.
For example, the end of war and the spread of electricity and communications.
- wealth ends wars while poverty starts wars.
Electricity is a product of free market enterprise.