Nonetheless, it’s a catch 22. Our “want” of self-reliance compels us to enact laws, among them those relating to property. Oddly, this very action creates dependence, whereby the laws begin to define who we are rather than the other way around.

When it comes to a “Creator” we cannot disassociate their creation from the individual (or entity) that created it. If it’s a natural person creating something truly unique we need to look no further than that person to recognize them as the author and rightful owner of their creation. We should all be able to agree that the tangible product is a result of an intangible source and that they’re intrinsically linked.

But it is also true that at some point a line of distinction between where one places the tangible and intangible must be drawn, and this is the great challenge. As an artist myself, I would look to share what I can create. However, I should never be forced to relinquish what I create by society. This would be subjugation to the whims of the collective, which is the root of all dictatorships.

Yes, one must definitely be very careful on what wishes for indeed. Still, until humanity rids itself of its collective follies it must remain in servitude to the “rule of law”. The remaining choice for the individual that finds themselves threatened by such law is a matter of personal decision, and will invoke whatever consequences stem from the conditions set by that law, but more importantly by they who hold the power to enforce it.