RE: Did The United States recently give away the Internet or has the Internet moved closer towards decentralization?
Hey Bleujay, thanks for the comment.
The problem I have with the logic of "If the premise is that a country invented a thing...then does it stand to reason that they would maintain control of it." it ignores that "nations" are a man-made concept.
Nations/gov'ts are nothing more than man-made concepts that only exist in the human psyche. A gov't/nation cannot create or own anything - it is the individual humans who are a part of a nation that create and own "things". Humans have the choice to identify with a nation and this is why the term 'expatriate' exist
Every time a human is born on Earth, they are located on a geographical location that may or may not be a part of an ‘official’ nation/gov’t. This does not give the nation that an individual is born in, ownership rights and a stake in everything that the individual creates/produces.
The logic of a nation "owning" all creations that are created within its physical and political boundaries is a tyrannical idea in itself. President Obama has used that logic to tell the American public that the things they did create ARE NOT theirs and that they DID NOT create anything - actually the United States is the creator and should have ownership rights to everything, including this post. Of course I am being sarcastic but the president of the United States has actually used this rhetoric and logic on the American people.... Here the link to a YouTube video of President Obama saying "if you've got a business, you did not build that"
Moral of the story ...stay awake people and be careful of the beliefs and ideologies you buy into…
Thank you for your reply. We will have to agree to disagree.
Nations are entities, businesses are entities, humans are entities. If one applies the logic you have presented....then bleujay can be given anything Fordmogul has in his possession or has created, etc.
As far as The President of the United States of America is concerned...there is a lack of basic establishment principles in his governance. Respect for freedom, the right to privacy, the right to property, respect for volition, respect for life are non exisistant. To use what he has said twists the discussion from ...nations should have a right to protect what their nation creates..to a person does not have a right to keep what they have created.
The Bible says God created nations and bleujay believes God, the creator of the Universe and mankind rather than false notions conjured up by man.
One can agree with your last statement...Stay awake people and be careful of the beliefs and ideologies you buy into.
Principle. Man is weak, he needs a greater power than himself to be either good or evil. You are either in God's system or Default to Satan's system.
Hi Bleujay,
I am not one to debate or discuss religion. I respect everyone’s right to practice their faith and I am not against anyone who is a better person as a result of their faith. But – this is not a discussion about religion so I respectfully rather leave your God and everybody’s God out of this topic.
I am showing that you that same ideology and rhetoric in your premise is being used on the American public by the United States gov’t to take away creation in the private sector.
You presented the logic of “bleujay can be given anything Fordmogul has in his possession or has created, etc." in your first comment by saying that “If the premise is that a country invented a thing...then does it stand to reason that they would maintain control of it."
I do not believe nations are ‘entitled’ and have a stake in everything that an individual creates. I view that logic as socialism or communism because it removes individuality.
Yes, nations/gov’ts do have a right to protect the creators that are a part of the nation but they do not have ownership stakes in what an individual creates in their own ‘privacy’ in a ‘free country’.
A nation or individual cannot claim that they are using their ‘right to protect a creation that has origin in their nation’ to restrict a private and free individual who has created. You are correct, with that logic – you could be given anything Fordmogul has in their possession or has created.
^ that is what I am and the founding principles of the United States are against.
Nations/gov’ts only have a right to protect what is created in the PUBLIC sector and not what is created in the PRIVITE sector. Nations/gov’ts do not have an ownership stake in a creation simply because a creation becomes widely adopted and used by the masses. Only in instances where literally national security is at risk, should a private creation be restricted as if the creation was created in the public sector.
Dicintonary.com defines the word 'entity' as a “being or existence, especially when considered as distinct, independent, or self-contained.”
So by definition a nation is an entity because it is largely independent, distinct and 'self-contained'. However, nations/gov’ts do not create anything – the humans that are apart of nations/gov’ts are what create and produce for nations. It is simple, no people, no nation, no creation or production. You show me a nation that exist and is producing GDP, products, exporting and importing goods and performing basic human-society functions/tasks without humans.
Thank you for your reply.
Religion is man by man's efforts seeking the approbation of God.
Christianity is a relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
In general the forefathers of Americas Constitution believed in a Higher power and made declarations of it. There is no point in discussing establishment set up by God (by the way there was no mention of religion) if He is not recognized. We are dialoguing from two different premises, therefore two different conclusions will be reached.
We will have to agree to disagree, will we not?
Thank you for your reply as well!
I agree with you, in the context of our discussion and this post, there is no point to discuss the United States as an establishment. The questions I am asking in this post are pertaining to human rights. There is a point in discussing a free individual's right to ownership and privacy. The discussion of God's role in the United States can get complicated. Yes, the founding fathers/body of people of the United States believed in Christianity but many of these forefathers also were Free Masons.
I understand your premise but I believe to enable discussion an individual should be able to separate God, religious beliefs and spiritual beliefs from laws, rights, ethics and morality. I can’t say I disagree with you at heart but I guess we’ll disagree on this one.