How exactly could we have space exploration/moon landings without government?

[nbhadja]

"Where exactly will all of this free market investment come from if we suddenly decided not to tax gasoline at $0.18/gallon???"

Well considering the fact that the gas tax gets passed onto the consumers leaving them with less wealth, I would say getting rid of the gas tax would increase investment into the free market, not to mention getting rid of the the huge income tax and the 15% inflation tax (rising each year).

 

[tremendoustie]

The thing is, I can't donate money to the government because it's taking enough from me already.

I am saying the correct way for you to support these programs, if you believe they are worthwhile, is to fight to stop the government from taking our money forcibly, then support it yourself voluntarily.

Suppose the local mob boss was sending thugs to our doors demanding money, money which he then used to, say, fund his brother who was researching cancer treatments. If I support the work of his brother, the right thing for me to do is not to support continued thug muggings, but rather, to try to stop the thugs, and voluntarily send my own money to support the cancer research.

This is because, while I might support the research, I recognize your right to have different priorities than I do.

I think you're all assuming I'm a statist and I support extravagant military budgets---ironic since you're the ones saying we cannot assume anything. Remember I'm a member of Ron Paul Forums and am not trolling, so I'd hope that at least would speak for something. I am for limited government, and was only curious as to how the private industry would or even could perform such things as space travel without precedent technology provided by the government.

Sure, that's a legit question. I think that space travel is probably not worth as much as we put into it. That said, there is a great amount of space research that could be funded cooperatively by universities and research institutions. In addition, there are industrial purposes for space technology -- like satellites. Wealthy people would pay for tourism.

In addition, if enough people are interested in space research and science, it could be funded by charities. I know I'd kick in 10 bucks for a cool new space telescope -- all we need is 1/10 of the country agreeing with me, and it'd be funded. Actually, if things were done more efficiently, it could probably happen for a lot cheaper than that.

I do think your name is unfortunate

I think if we didn't have space travel via government, the private sector would never have developed similar means to do a very limited exploration today. In fact, I would doubt any of us in our lifetime would see privatized space travel--which is the distant future (you think humans will be landlocked on this planet forever?) --if we had no government mandating NASA.

Sure. The problem is, we can't see what the alternative would be, if these brains and resources were doing other research. Suppose cancer would be cured -- this is not unrealistic, I know how smart and capable people at NASA are. Are you willing to give up the cure for cancer to have a few space technologies and missions we wouldn't otherwise have? Suppose that alternative fuel would be developed -- it would be cheap and environmentally friendly, and we wouldn't need to import more oil. But we don't have this, because these engineering minds were instead working on spacecraft. Perhaps we would have cheap water desalinization or purification, which would have saved millions by forever solving droughts and water borne illness.

These minds would be working, the only difference is, they'd be working on what people express a need for, rather than what the government tells them to.

Think about what you would give money to. For me, space technology is cool, but feeding the poor is more important, and I would give more to fund those efforts. If most are like me, I think that tells us what is more important to people. I might invest in a company researching new technologies, like advanced photovoltaics, because I recognize the huge potential such a technology could have. Thus, resources are allocated towards solving the most important human problems, and it is done freely, not funded by force and violence.

I would gladly donate money if we didn't have an income tax for space travel. The problem is now the level of space travel seems negligible so I probably wouldn't pour my money into the project unless we were going to Mars or doing something more productive than casual explorations of space.

Great. That means that once we get rid of the income tax, assuming most people agree with you, we'll have a space program that more closely matches what people want, namely Mars exploration, or more targeted, productive things.

Can I expect you to fund the project? No I cannot, so go ahead and move to Liechtenstein where you'll have a utopian tax haven.

You got the first part of that right, you can't. Why do I have to move to Liechtenstein to avoid thugs that wish to take my money by force? Is that just? And there are thugs, and taxes, in Lichtenstein as well. This, "we own the country, we have a right to your life and your property if you live here, move away if you don't like it" argument is total B.S. It's about as valid as the justification from the highway robber that "this bridge and road are my domain for robbery, and if you don't like it, take the long way 'round".

Furthermore, there's no place to move. Everyplace on earth has people in the business of taking the fruit of your labor by force. Every highway and bridge has a robber proclaiming ownership. You do not own this country, nor the people who live on it, nor the things they produce. Stop pretending that you do.

I have no problem with taxation as neither did the Founders. Sorry, but I'll support Jeffersonian policies before I'll adhere to Rothbardian theories of anarchism.

You like Jefferson, eh? Howbout this:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
- Thomas Jefferson

Or,

"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
-Thomas Jefferson

Or,

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated."
-- Thomas Jefferson

The founders supported tariffs, which make a lot more sense -- at least people within the country are free. They certainly never intended something as outrageous as the income tax.

No Founders that I knew of supported anarchy. Wasn't it Thomas Paine, perhaps one of the more radical of the revolutionaries, who said Government was a "necessary evil"?? So I guess if you believe Rothbard is brighter than Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, and Thomas Paine, then I'm sorry I wasted my time replying.

How about we use our own brains, mmmkay? I've got no problem with government. I would definitely voluntarily give some money to the government for police protection, national security, courts, etc. However, I think there should be an option for those who wish to opt out. That way we do not run our government by thuggery.

Oh, and by the way, Thomas Paine said government at its BEST was a necessary evil, and at its worst an intolerable one. I'll let you judge which we have now. Here are a couple more quotes of his, since you like him so much:

"If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute."
Thomas Paine

We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute.”
- Thomas Paine

"What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue."
Thomas Paine (regarding taxation)

And Ben Franklin:

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
- Benjamin Franklin

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature."
- Benjamin Franklin


George Washington:

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
- George Washington

"Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth."
- George Washington

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
-George Washington

John Adams:

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
-John Adams

Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people.
-John Adams

James Madison:

"[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its
jurisdiction.”
- James Madison

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution
which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
- James Madison

A couple extras I like:

"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection."
- John Stuart Mill

"I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money."
- Colonel David Crockett

It's because we live in a world where government must exist (Move to Somalia if anarchism is the way--last week over 1,000 people watched a 13 year old teenager get stoned to death because she was raped and that was considered adultery--there's your utopia of anarchism) that we must pay taxes. If government is not to exist, as I mentioned earlier, then fly to Somalia--oh wait you can't because the warlords there, which are nothing more than private individuals existing in an anarchy state, have threatened to shoot down any and all aircraft flying into the airports of Somalia. So you go find a way to get there, live there for a day if you could even avoid being shot at, and tell me how your opinion of Government changes.

I already said I'm not anarchist. And, if you are capable of thinking honestly for one moment, you'll realize it is a ridiculous argument to take one example of a heinous act in an example of a country which has only a weak government precisely because it has descended into violence, and proclaim it as the inevitable result of anarchy. I would actually have a better argument were I to say, "go to Nazi Germany circa 1942 if you want to see your utopia of 'government'".

I think we can be more adult than this. If you honestly believe that stoning 13 year old rape victims is the inevitable result of voluntary government, please give rational arguments in support of your view.

Yours is a ridiculous false dichotomy: "I must send my thugs to force you to pay taxes, or we will become somalia, and stone 13 year old rape victims". Does this work on anyone?

If government is to exist, then it is the fate of us all that we pay some sort of taxes to fund it even if we disagree with a certain policy that others advocate. That is why you elect representatives that believe in your beliefs. Even Ron Paul mentioned this point when debating Huckabee.

Yeah, no. We can support those programs we wish to see implemented. I for one will pay for police protection, courts, and national defense, assuming they do a decent job. Why should I be forced to pay for NASA, for example, especially since it's found nowhere in the constitution? If a program can't get adequate funding voluntarily, it's probably not worth having.

I would be much more happy with the tack the founders took -- tariffs wouldn't be so bad, and wouldn't be such an affront to liberty. The income tax is an outrage.

I think many of you are lost. This is Ron Paul Forums. Perhaps you didn't take notice that he was running to re-instate the Constitution as being a document to be respected and followed. Many of you are advocating no taxation as it would support policies you don't. How is government to exist on a national level to provide for the provisions of the Constitution if we cannot tax??

The constitution would be much, much, much better than what we have now. I can think for myself, so yes, there are certain points I probably disagree with Paul on. I certainly support his efforts, however, and think he is far and away our best option for leadership in this country. I can get behind a man I agree with 99%, especially when the rest of the country seems to intend to kill liberty all together.

I for one would be happy to opt into a government which follows the constitution, and would voluntarily pay my share to fund it. I just don't want to send thugs to your door to force you to pay for it. Is that really extreme? Because it just seems like basic decency to me.

Must you agree with everything for it to be a valid tax?? Funny and ironic...this is called "Groupthink" if I remember correctly. We only have policies everyone agrees with--good luck finding a country or government where that could happen.

Nope, no need for 100% agreement, we have whatever programs enough people are willing to pay for. If I dislike FEMA, but there are a bunch of other people willing to help fund it, it's gonna happen.

So you're advocating anarchy, which is just as retarded as advocating universal health care.

Translation: So! You're advocating people being free from my thugs showing up to demand money on a regular basis, lest they be thrown in a cage! That's just as retarded as advocating I beat more people up and demand more money!

Again, move away from the theoretical models of Rothbard and Rockwell, and move to Somalia for a day. Tell me the fruits of anarchy. Tell me the evils of Government.

Move to North Korea or Hitler's Germany for a day. Tell me the fruits of government by force. Tell me the evils of freedom.

Or we could have an actual logical discussion instead of one based on absurd, sensationalist examples.

 

[Expatriate]

Nice tremendous post, tremendoustie. I completely agree with your point. For some reason a lot of people think government is above having human flaws, even though it's made up of humans.

 

[idiom]

Nasa should avoid the launch business. They certainly have governmental role in weather and basic research.

 

[jbuttell]

Private companies can barely even get out of the atmosphere, let alone explore space.

This is frustrating. I'm tired of these "free market does everything better" theories. For most things, they do; others, they don't. The military cannot be held to the free market. I'm glad the government provides us with a military because I, unlike many of you, have looked around lately. I don't want some of these people (some of which are likely yourselves) to have a private military force. I don't want warlords running America as would exist privately. The theoretical bullshit you guys throw is ridiculous and completely impractical.

Free market can't solve things it can't get to. The Government can't nuke Neptune just as Company X can't land on the moon. It's too big of a task for private companies to do, and too costly of an endeavor. For those of you who believe "well, if it's too expensive, it's not a good idea". I suppose living on this planet is something sustainable in a hundred years, right? Even though we'll all likely be dead, or wish we would be, people won't last another hundred years on this planet.

I don't understand how one can so quickly dismiss the possibility of the private sector developing technology, more efficiently than our government. Sure, the government likely did it much faster than the private sector would, but what has it really done for us?

Consider the amazing progress by Armadillo Aerospace. I'm not dismissing what they've learned from NASA. I'm comparing them to today's NASA who has repeatedly failed to produce a shuttle replacement, for a variety of reasons. Dollar for Dollar, Armadillo and some of the other Xprize guys are delivering far more bang for the buck.

More importantly though, Socialize_me, I think people should ask themselves, what is the necessity for government to spearhead technologies like space exploration, or the nuclear bomb... or even the internet. I've had many dreams about rocketing to outer space with nuclear propulsion and a kickass wifi link, but I can't help but wonder if some of these developments have hastened our demise.

We've all been trained to quickly rattle off all those amazing toys the government has given us over the years through NASA and other Military projects. I look at the other side of things and wonder what it may have been like - if society grew at a slower pace. One thing's for certain, the government now has bigger guns and a stronger means to monitor the people.

What about some of the technologies like fuelcells and solar. Where are they? They're all still exotic and out of the reach of the average person. Had the industry not been exposed to them, one could argue that more practical technologies would have emerged made from less expensive materials. I'd have a hard time being convinced that if not for NASA we wouldn't have solar. Solar, while a challenging technology to perfect, is an inevitable technology. It has been long understood that plants harness energy from the sun, it's only a matter of time before people tried to figure out a way to mimic it. But I digress - I know solar is only one of many many technologies they helped develop.

If that technology had been utilized to decentralize power - to make cities more self sufficient, I'd be impressed. Unfortunately that isn't the case 40 years after NASA so graciously dumped all of these technologies in our lap. The Feds are now tapping into our bank accounts with this technology to ensure they get their full cut. Our cars are being outfitted with GPS tracking devices and kill-switches for Police. We all willfully walk around with GPS tracking devices in our pockets. Cities are becoming bigger and bigger clusterfucks, ticking timebombs just waiting for a disaster that disrupts the water and food chain causing mass panic.

Where is all that technology that's going to save our ass when the shit really goes down? I love technology - but I'm not seeing it really working for us much these days.

 

[fatjohn]

Why do we need to travel into space? Every time I see a space shuttle launch (or explode), I think about how much of my money is going up in smoke... Scrap NASA.

This comment is as ridiculous as saying why does Columbus go sailing on my expense in fifteenth century Spain. Don't you use GPS, don't you watch the weather channel in order to now where to flee when the next hurricane hits, don't you watch BBC as an american or CNN as a european, never made a call to someone across the atlantic, never used google earth, don't wanna know when a solar flare erupts and might radiate passengers on flights 10 kilometers up, don't wanna know when a tsunami might strike ...

That's just the applications, we ain't talking yet about possible moon mining within the next century, about what diseases might be cured due to science conducted in space, new technologies that emerge from the technologie push that is the core of the challenge within space flight like solar photovoltaics and wireless drill.

And btw NASA's budget up until this day is likely to be less then that bill congress passed a few days ago

 

[fatjohn]

Now for the real question of the OP:
I think that many good things came from space exploration but nonetheless it could have happened much faster with truly free economy. If we would take 1945 as the moment the world became a truly free economy, the space industry wouldn't have put a man on the moon in 1970 yet, but it would have steadily grown. There would have been a few decades for adventurers who wanted space tourism and then companies would see the need to forecast the weather and to know where you are with GPS so funds would have come from the commercial sector. And i personally believe that we would be further by now (like moonbase and possible mining to helium 3). But in the real world the commercial sector was from the start lagging governments due to the moonrace of the sixties. And it took until now (approximatly 30 years of nothing spectacular going on) that private companies are getting in the game. So i would say NASA bad, space exploration good.

 

[Truth Warrior]

How exactly could we have space exploration/moon landings without government?

RADICAL CONCEPT: Voluntary contributions and investments. Not enough? Don't do it.

 

[Verad]

White Knight 1 and SpaceShipOne are by far the cheapest means for humans to travel into space ever.

Private ventures into space may not seem like much right now, but just give them time.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

Nahh...are you kidding me?? Rockwell and Rothbard were and are economists with some philosophy. The Founders?? Look at what most of their abilities were--they were Renaissance men with expertise in many fields, and most of them were all individually like that. Many were fluent in multiple languages as well, not that being unilingual is a bad thing.

Rockwell and Rothbard are/were pretty well informed on economic and monetary history. The Founders? Well, to give an example, James Madison locked himself for weeks in his house prior to the Constitutional Convention to study Roman and Greek Law. Most of the Founders, at least the well known ones that I have referred to, knew more about history and law than anyone today. It's quite astonishing how people like Adams, Jefferson, and Madison were all educated on economic understanding with very little to go off of considering the first book on economics was written in 1776 by Adam Smith, they all knew law just as good as, perhaps even better, than our Supreme Court justices, and their understanding of history was better than anything I've read by Rockwell or Rothbard. In fact after reading Rothbard's criticism of the K-wave supercycle theory, I question exactly his historical reasoning.

To compare Rockwell or Rothbard with Jefferson or Adams, or to even suggest they're more intelligent, is pretty radical and offensive--not to mention very mind boggling. It's clear you've read very little of Adams and Jefferson, but a lot of Rockwell and Rothbard. Considering Jefferson was a botanist, philosopher, historian, architect, statesman, archaeologist, paleontologist, author, and inventor, and that Adams was many of those in addition to being a lawyer, I really question YOUR reasoning as to say Rothbard and Rockwell are brighter men than Jefferson and Adams were. Unbelievable! Can you name the professions of Rothbard and Rockwell? Historians, philosophers, and economists...hardly anything comparable to the Founders. But of course, you read very little into them and more into the dogmatic views of the anarchists. Move to Somalia and test their theories out if they're so bright. Then again, anarchists never cease to amaze me how they make up more and more excuses than anything. I suppose Somalia would be excused as a bad model by Rothbard and Rockwell...just as frustrating debating folks like you as it is debating Communists saying communism has never been tried because it actually failed several times historically.

Just excuse piled on top of excuse. I look at the real world, not theory, and I find the theorists do nothing less than make excuses to keep their utopian vision preserved. The Founders looked at history and modeled America after many examples of it. Rothbard and Rockwell, when they deviate from their historical references and advocate universal voluntarism and no government, are suggesting mere theory. If you want your life to be an experiment testing out anarchy, then it will be a very short and miserable one.

Your taking this way too fucking personally it seems, did I even say I was an anarchist? No, so stop telling me to move to Somalia. I even implied the founders could be right about the necessary evil of the state. The government the founders set up by the way, failed.

My opinion still stands.

 

[forsmant]

Adam Smith's book The Wealth of Nations, was not the first economics book written. If it were why would he reference so many other books while witting his own? Have you read any of the book or just asserting the usual lie that you were told by your history teachers?

 

[dude58677]

I'm anxious in being enlightened for this topic. I understand some quasi-space travel is going on privately, costing millions for individuals to take part in it, but how exactly would space travel work under privatization?? I mean, it's been almost 40 years since the government subsidized human landing on the moon...it's 2008 and we're just starting to get billionaires to fly a couple miles outside of our atmosphere. Who knows how long it will take for the private sector to adopt space travel to be as popular as going to Europe or Australia for vacation, but it seems as if it's very, very far off. Wasn't NASA a good thing??

Ever hear of Burt Rutan and SpaceShip One?

 

[Flash]

I wouldn't mind being taxed for Space exploration. Just imagine landing on Mars in the next 50 years.

 

[torchbearer]

Private Space Societies, as in private non-profit ventures.
Like the people who fund SETI now.

 

[torchbearer]

I wouldn't mind being taxed for Space exploration. Just imagine landing on Mars in the next 50 years.

In the spirit of making it a voluntary tax, I think most of the government programs should be funded by adding money to a checklist of things you want to fund on your tax filings.
They have an optional tax to fund campagns I believe... you can check it and put up your own money for it voluntarily.

I would fund the space program, but not homeland security.

Or you can contribute to a space society that is working on settling mars.

 

[AJ Antimony]

Private companies can barely even get out of the atmosphere, let alone explore space.

This is frustrating. I'm tired of these "free market does everything better" theories. For most things, they do; others, they don't. The military cannot be held to the free market. I'm glad the government provides us with a military because I, unlike many of you, have looked around lately. I don't want some of these people (some of which are likely yourselves) to have a private military force. I don't want warlords running America as would exist privately. The theoretical bullshit you guys throw is ridiculous and completely impractical.

Free market can't solve things it can't get to. The Government can't nuke Neptune just as Company X can't land on the moon. It's too big of a task for private companies to do, and too costly of an endeavor. For those of you who believe "well, if it's too expensive, it's not a good idea". I suppose living on this planet is something sustainable in a hundred years, right? Even though we'll all likely be dead, or wish we would be, people won't last another hundred years on this planet.

Private companies are becoming the future of space. You probably missed SpaceShipOne hitting orbit. The reason private companies hadn't until now was because of the Cold War and the Moon Race. NASA, like a private company, was competing with another, so millions of people were interested, so NASA snatched up everybody interested in space. Now that they aren't in competition, NASA isn't too exciting, so people are starting to go their own ways.

To better understand what a private space program would look like, think about 17th century Europe or something. A lot of ships crossed the Atlantic for economic purposes, and independent of government. They were exploring. That's the future of the space program.

 

[tremendoustie]

I wouldn't mind being taxed for Space exploration. Just imagine landing on Mars in the next 50 years.

That's great, then you can send your money voluntarily -- I will send some too, for certain space programs. I am sure you wouldn't want to forcibly take the money of someone who is opposed to it though, right? So taxation isn't really the way to go here ...

 

[MGreen]

Rockwell and Rothbard are/were pretty well informed on economic and monetary history. The Founders? Well, to give an example, James Madison locked himself for weeks in his house prior to the Constitutional Convention to study Roman and Greek Law. Most of the Founders, at least the well known ones that I have referred to, knew more about history and law than anyone today. It's quite astonishing how people like Adams, Jefferson, and Madison were all educated on economic understanding with very little to go off of considering the first book on economics was written in 1776 by Adam Smith, they all knew law just as good as, perhaps even better, than our Supreme Court justices, and their understanding of history was better than anything I've read by Rockwell or Rothbard.

The part in bold undermines your entire argument. To criticize anarchy because the Founders, as brilliant as they were, believed in limited government is faulty, because the idea of anarchy was very much undeveloped. This is especially true for market anarchy because, as you said, economic theory was just starting to be formed and understood.

It could probably be argued that, without the Founders, individualism and laissez-faire would not have had the movements they did in the 19th century. We may as well respond to your original question with: "Well, Thomas Jefferson didn't fund space exploration, so clearly NASA is bad."

 

[regtoday]

"How exactly could we have space exploration/moon landings without government?"

Ever hear of the Ansari X-Prize? They offered a 10 million dollar prize to the first private team to successfully launch two consecutive sub-orbital flights into space. Here is the second flight by Virgin Galactic's Space Ship One which won them 10 million dollars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2dZbVPS7Zs

Now there is the Google Lunar X-Prize which offers 30 million dollars to the first 2 teams to launch and rove a robotic lunar lander.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2dZbVPS7Zs

What incentives are there for private space exploration?

With the moons low gravity and a 15 psi atmosphere you could strap on wings to your arms and fly like a bird. Does that sound like fun?

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

Easy, let the private industries PAY FOR IT with investor money instead of tax dollars.

Remove the government and that will also remove the hugely inflated costs for everything. I think it wouldn't even cost a 1/4 of the current space budget once you remove the fed and their bullshit military and top secret programs which odds are have zero to do with space exploration or expanding our knowledge of what is out there.

Let wealthy people like that virgin atlantic owner fund stuff like this, hell he already funds his own space exploration ideas with that one plane he wants to be able to go into the upper atmosphere or whatever it is supposed to do.

People get confused thinking that WITHOUT the government we wouldn't be able to do things and that is VERY WRONG. Once we remove the government THEN we will be able to do amazing things.

Look at computer cost prices, now imagine if the government ran the computer industry and how shitty the comps AND the pricing would be. It works when you allow those who want to become wealthy to BECOME WEALTHY and continue advancing our technology.