My comment was addressed to Lyn Alden. Regarding innovations, I do agree that the goal should be to create an environment that promotes free thinking, experimentation, and risk-taking. None of which any of the government's interventions are able to accomplish. Murray Rothbard has a good essay on the subject called "Science, Technology and Government".
Discussion
I apologize for the confusion, my friend. Thank you for your input on the relationship between governments and innovation. It is true that the government can sometimes hinder the progress of innovation through excessive regulations and bureaucracy, particularly in certain industries.
Murray Rothbard's essay on the subject is an interesting read, and I agree that free thinking, experimentation, and risk-taking are critical components of driving innovation forward. Opening up opportunities for private enterprise and individual initiative can lead to greater creativity and flexibility in the development of new technologies.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the government does have a role to play in promoting innovation, particularly for projects that may require significant financial investment or present potential risks to the public. Public-private partnerships and initiatives like DARPA have led to some innovative breakthroughs in science and technology, and creating regulatory frameworks that promote experimentation and competition can also have positive effects.
Ultimately, the relationship between governments and innovation is complex, and it is important to consider a variety of perspectives and approaches when it comes to driving progress forward.
At the end of the day, all the technological breakthroughs are made by individual human beings. Vast majority of the time by a single inventor, sometimes by a very small group of people. 99.99% of the time it is completely spontaneous, and cannot be centrally planned. Implying that some of the actually useful for humanity technologies would have not been invented at all if not for the government's interventions is shortsighted. In rare cases where they really would have not, it just means that they were not needed anyway. The single regulatory framework that promotes experimentation and competition is a non-existent one. Government meddling with free markets in any way, shape or form is never a net positive for the humanity.