laɪsənʧər

Over years, the United States has pressed on the recognition of its Supremacy Clause and that it is secured in copyright law and private companies iff recognized by foreign countries. The point I mean to take here comes with a taste of nihilism – that is, in the world, there is no security in the anarchic state of technology and the web; no balance of macro-level control could ever be agreed upon in a consensus of political bodies. In this dimension there is free language, free navigation, and innovation. At what point can ideas be controlled across the world. What ultimate good would that do? To impede haste…

As a travelled person, there are Rawlsian concepts I embrace, that the diversity of ideas across the world create the most ideological end.

I see that it is best to embrace this perspective in a little world that believes in the control, monetarization, and monopoly of ideas. If there is any control of ideas, how can they spread and allow others to grow? The licensure (because it was necessary) was there only to say that I am who I am because I put up a flag on it. Rather, the ideas are to be free to be spread. Copyright is great on legitimacy and identity, but no more on control. In a world where material is in-finite, there is only so much further, if ideas and the intrinsic can be spread to all people- that work is not for naught, not thrown out. The benefit of others is a benefit of self. [end rant]