>This could be the "flying car" of the next 100 years that never fulfills its promise. Although I understand your point here, I thought I'd point out that this

>This could be the "flying car" of the next 100 years that never fulfills its promise. Although I understand your point here, I thought I'd point out that this is a weak analogy because the problem with the flying car isn't that it's not technologically possible (it is, relatively trivially these days in fact) the problem is that it's a stupid idea. People have bad enough accidents when dealing with the two dimensions on a road, there's no way to make the technology safe enough to achieve the kind of market penetration the traditional automobile has. Without that the market forces for scaling the infrastructure necessary to produce and maintain such a 'fleet' don't exist. >While you declare it a "moral imperative" and we bend all laws and societal rules to accommodate it, what suffers? Those that want to continue to rely on a market model that is obsoleted by shifting the means of productions to individuals. >What great technologies and solutions are killed Those that are not pursued because there is not enough money in them under the new system. As opposed to those that are not pursued because there is not enough money in them in the existing system. >What of our liberties go away because you have a vision? The ability to make a bet that your creative work will be a success without the danger of someone in a better position to make money from the idea doing so. In fact we are already seeing the beginnings of a return to the modes of commerce prior to intellectual property laws such as an artisan being commissioned ahead of time to produce something by way of tools like Kickstarter which finally attempt to solve the discrepancy between our ability to produce and distribute and our ability to communicate. >my interest is in protecting the free market principles that have consistently created the greatest good for the most people My interest is in creating even greater good for even more people. Now, I'm not so arrogant to claim I know these new modes of commerce are better outright, I'm just saying that we don't actually know and we should give them their fair shot. Why should we settle when we could do even better? wow did I get off topic and start ranting or what?