Catching Wind of the Federal Innovation Statement

Original innovation stems from innovative individuals, whereby innovation is the meta-ideology expressed as a solution normally to the burgeoning conditions of existence or else an ideal for betterment alone. Having deduced the means to both create a better potential for everyone and in process ascend from their perhaps more squarlerly conditions to a wealthy standard (or else avoid descent into poorliness), the innovator has several realistic possibilities; 1) convince someone to support them and realise the innovations potential, 2) commit to regulated conditions to ensure fulfillment of the innovation under generic construction 3) radically divest with commercially volatile precedents, otherwise unknown to realize positive potential. The set of conditions alters depending on the circumstances, and for the wealthy individual to ensure they don’t become poor, is distinct to the poorer individuals attainment of wealth.

The government has the options to ensure that innovators can and will set true innovation on course for fulfillment, rewarding the actual innovator themselves, delivering adequate justice too in the socio-economic reality regardless of present conditions of the person. Also however to regulate the fringe actualities of other innovative contrivances directly destabilizing current corporate provisioning within the market, the governments responsible for countering that individuals efforts, for delivering nothing of loss but only more benefit to the marketplace. This actuality confers on the nature of science and patents as legally construed, since accreditation for original innovation isn’t authoritatively attributed in any public scheme, the private methods of deliverance garners dangerous climates of fear and devising over corporate security within criminal codes. Here the state of nature is perturbed between exploiting people, and delivering goods effectively. A proper public record and accreditation system rooted to the most fundamental standards in welfare, can adequately ensure those with power to exploit individuals for capital means and financial security are known publicly through the media, as so designed for freedom of speech, and in their greed, ensuring their course to poverty, counter to their plain ambitions. Of course the dystopian scenario, where innovations kept a secret, due to fear of losing competitive advantage, means a pressure on innovators, and hitting the market, ensures fracturing of the economy, borders collapse, and effects GFC’s, which leads to this market based behavior firstly.

Interjecting in the modern state, the executive of the modern state must justify how they can gain wealth, why the market requires their innovative solutions, and show they can deliver this; the startup models have proven recently even the most committed individuals can prosper, from the most plainly demanded products, by disruption and innovation. This means of securing existing wealth in the state of nature is counter to the very same means at attaining first wealth. The difference in exploitation to production, to being truly innovative, and to copying other innovators, and applying animistic determination. Governments should rule by mandate between this regard, of commercializing production as merited, and not by ambition, and in Australia it’s at the Centrelink office, the job network providers, and the NEIS scheme representative who must realize a good idea when they hear one, even right out of the blue. This of course is impossible to judge as belonging in the public or private eye, and the reason why person (a) remains poor, person (b) fails to supply, and person (c) flukes it in the end on wind of (a) and (b)’s total loss.