Memeverse

These days, I keep hearing of people getting jailed for not a very good reason. Wesley Snipes gets jailed for resisting government theft of his well earned property. And now, one close to our geeky hearts, Hans Reiser gets 25 to life in prison for the supposed murder, despite the fact that, as I keep hearing, evidence was merely circumstantial and the key evidence elements are missing (body of the actual victim, for instance).

Mr. Reiser is a weird guy perhaps, outspoken, easily interpreted as rude. Gee.. who else do we know displaying similar traits? Richard Stallman? Theo De Raadt? Let’s jail them all for not fitting the norm of “accepted” social behavior! Or not?

Because, for lack of better evidence, this is what the Reiser case largely comes down to.

And what do we see our fellow geeks do about it? The sheep just take it as it is. A court says he’s a murderer so he must be called a murderer, and that’s where the story ends. I wonder if they’d be so indifferent if it was them who were falsely accused and rotting in prison now, just because their social behavior was interpreted as oh so hurtful towards good men and women in this sheepish western society.

I expected better from a Free Software community, all so adamant in promoting their cause and supposedly “freedom”.

So how about someone gets a god damn hint here and starts questioning? Are there any geeks out there, who are well versed in the intrigues of “law” and have enough respect for a fellow Free Software supporter to actually care if he is being falsely robbed of his freedom or not?

First of all, I am not claiming to be an expert on internet and web entrepreneurship nor web publishing itself. I start with what I’ve got and learn what I need or what I am really interested in as I go. That said, a recent discussion I had with a friend inspired me to write a description of what I see as modern internet entrepreneurship.

An entrepreneur is someone who seeks opportunities for creating value for other people. Most entrepreneurs also seek ways to convert this value that they provide into something of value for themselves as well (like money). An entrepreneur can, just as every other human, make mistakes and see an opportunity where there is none or simply fail to offer the kind of value that people are really looking for. In a free market entrepreneur is actually a default characterization of all people, since in their quest of pursuing maximum value for themselves, they first need to provide some value to others. In an extremely broad sense even wage workers could be considered entrepreneurs.

An internet entrepreneur is all of the above except that (s)he chose the internet, mainly the web, as the means of providing value (because this is what his/her skills or interests fit with best). This means that an internet entrepreneur will look for opportunities which (s)he can pursue by means of the internet, usually starting a web site of some sort (but could also be various other kinds of services instead or in addition to it, such as hosting mail servers, IM or IRC services, etc.).

Typically, internet entrepreneurs start web sites on which they provide some sort of a content or service hoping that enough people would find it valuable enough to visit or use, even if this requires a payment. And this is where a crucial point comes, one greatly related to the above mentioned discussion.

This payment does not necessarily have to be in money going directly from visitors to the web site owner. Most of the time the visitors see various kinds of advertisements placed on the web site and the fact that they have to see them in addition to the actual content they are looking for is their payment. If the content that is on the site is, however, not valuable enough for them to “put up” with those ads they will simply leave and not come back. Otherwise, they wont mind ads enough to leave.

So a web publisher “charges” visitors with this “price” for the content they are offering. At the same time, however, the fact that there is a number of visitors “buying” this content for that “price” of seeing ads is what creates the value that those ads themselves have to people we know as advertisers - people who wish to advertise a particular other site, product or service to our audience. So they pay if the price of those spots is what they consider to be fair given the value they estimate to get from it.

So, in a nutshell, internet entrepreneurs today are in a sense mediators between users of the content they provide and advertisers. What puts them into this position is the fact that they offer valuable content. As soon as no people “buy” the content, no advertiser will buy advertising space and the site will turn into a useless ghost town.

This is why it is extremely important to provide valuable content, and it definitely helps, if it should not actually be required, for one providing content to have a genuine interest in what it is about. An internet entrepreneur should also strive to make the cost the user associates with the displaying of ads to be as low as possible - therefore making ads as non-intrusive as possible while still retaining enough value for the advertiser.

If visitors didn’t see ads on the site they may be paying for the content they are getting in some other way, possibly involving a direct payment to the site owner. I believe, however, the reason why instead of this we see most sites carrying advertisements instead is because this is of greatest convenience to everyone. Not everyone has a paypal account nor does everyone want to use their credit card on too many sites. People would rather see a few ads than shell out real cash.

Those who do not like ads should really think about that. Perhaps there is an opportunity for themselves - in finding a way that keeps this convenience while ridding us of the necessity to display ads. I might give this some thought myself.

Cheers.

A few decades from now privately owned space ships will roam through Earth space and perhaps throughout the solar system.

Virgin Galactic appears to have made a historic move towards making this happen, and this time I am not referring to them building a uber-futuristic space port nor sending tourists to space with one of theirs SpaceShipTwo’s. Oh, they will be doing that, next year or so. But what they did in January this year may prove to have much more dramatic ramifications. Let’s see…

Virgin Galactic on Wednesday (January 23rd) unveiled designs for SpaceShipTwo and the WhiteKnightTwo, two vehicles that are designed to usher in private spaceflight. The technology behind the system will have an open architecture “like Linux,” said officials.

This comes from a story titled “Virgin Galactic unveils SpaceShipTwo; Plans open architecture spaceship”.

And here I was, tongue in cheek, searching for instructions on how to build my own space ship (so I can escape should dreaded predictions for this government-fscked up Earth come true). Little did I know that my little dream isn’t that far from impossible anymore.

With openly available space ship architectures an army of what we could term “space geeks” (many of which are, no doubt, star trek fans) will be all over this looking for ways to not only improve the current design, but perhaps build completely new ship designs. Some of them, with entrepreneurial spirit and some (big) cash in their pockets might even start contracting builders for even better, faster, cheaper space ships - ones that could go on much further than “sub”-orbit and orbit of the Earth.

If you ask me, the genie is out of the bottle. The private somewhat free market finally took the ball (or was allowed to) in order to actually do something exciting about space flight and exploration, something that actually matters to me and you and your.. grandma. We’re talking about Linux for the masses.. er.. did I just say that? We’re talking Space Flight for the masses.

Given these news I don’t feel surprised anymore that someone on 43things is thinking about an “Open Source Space Ship”. I reckon if an alliance of people and companies who really care about this stuff would come together they might not only design private space ships in an open freedomware-like fashion, but actually build them, and build them as such to be operable with little training.

There is really nothing too tangible standing in the way of us starting to buzz around through Earth’s close space within decades in cool private space ships. All the basic technology is there, the market is forming and the idea of breaking out of our atmosphere is common sense since god damn seventies! It’s about time we break free!

I am going to go to space, in my life time.

Cheers!

Cool links:

- Virgin spaceship to use open source?
- SpaceDev to Build Piloted Spaceship
- Virgin Galactic Space Flights FAQ
- And.. how about some serious space shippery, Building an Antimatter Spaceship!

I am getting to the bottom of why anarcho-capitalism can work. Let’s start by defining “nature”, “laws of nature” and “human nature”.

Nature is everything in the universe which is not by human (non-artificial, existence of which is independent and completely agnostic to humans and their conditions and affairs).

Laws of nature are all processes and properties which are beyond human control and which no human can escape.

Human nature are therefore all processes and properties applicable to humans which are beyond their control and escape.

Since anarcho-capitalism is essentially a proposed system of human interaction (a “social system”) the last definition, “human nature”, is most relevant here. Some of the fundamental properties and processes which fit the above definition are the following:

1. Humans are living, self-aware beings capable of thinking, choosing and acting. Since this is their nature they are entitled to self-ownership, liberty and property as the product of their actions.

2. A human being, in any given moment, always acts in pursuit of to him or her maximum value.

3. A human being sees destruction of his or her value as immoral or “wrong” and construction of the same as moral or “right”.

4. What one human sees as a value can differ from what another human sees.

So in summary, all humans live, think, choose and act in pursuit of what is most valuable to them at any given moment while considering the destruction of the same as morally wrong, but what is most valuable differs from person to person.

One thing that we learn from nature as we understand it so far is that it always pursues the path of least resistance. To a particular human, what is most valuable is usually most motivating. Therefore pursuit of this value is also going to be the “easiest” thing to do, the most cost-effective thing to do. It may not seem so at first because most of us tend to have a limited perception of “value”. We therefore say that sometimes pursuing a moral path is harder and will encounter more resistance.

However, if one is set “against the odds” yet still proceeds this just means that proceeding is more valuable to him or her than giving up or conversely that not proceeding would encounter more mental resistance than proceeding. External obstacles are already taken into the value equation of this individual and deemed less resisting than the mental resistance he would encounter should he proceed otherwise or more worth than the mental reward he would feel should he proceed otherwise.

One of the most relevant principles involved with anarcho-capitalism is non-coercion. What is coercion? It is the process by which individual A attempts to affect the value judgment of individual B by the threat of force, in order to induce an action (s)he desires an individual B to take. “Force” here is defined as destruction of something individual B finds valuable, from his life to his property.

Coercion will fail if individual B finds mental reward of resisting the aggressor to be higher than the mental reward of giving in to the aggressor. Coercion, unsurprisingly, usually succeeds since avoiding harm or termination to life is usually found more mentally rewarding than getting killed or harmed. However, this is a choice between value destruction and value destruction, two wrongs - two evils of which individual B has to choose one which he deems lesser. If coercion fails anything of value to individual B that was threatened by the aggressor, from life to property, may be destroyed. If coercion succeeds, it is still individual B’s freedom which was destroyed.

And by nature of existing every individual values his freedom, to the extent to which he is aware of being entitled to it.

Anarcho-capitalism is fundamentally about establishing a laissez faire free market of individual humans. This market is self-regulating because it depends on the value pursuits of each individual in it. And since everyone has different values, but everyone seeks to maximize them, trade of values usually occurs. It is devoid of coercion because coercion means destruction of liberty, which is of value to every individual. When one individual in a free market exercises coercion (s)he is acting against the freedom value of an individual and therefore against the fundamental value of the market to which this individual belongs to, BUT also against the freedom of his/her own. This is because at that point the harmed individual, or its family, will be entitled to seek the aggressor and force him to pay the reparations. This is the only case in which force is not deemed destructive, because it merely restores the value destruction of an individual to which the force was initiated.

What this means is that coercion in a free market has a value price which involves not only the reparations that the aggressor is potentially going to be forced to pay, but the loss of freedom as well, something valuable to every individual. Since all humans act in pursuit of maximum value, coercion will be employed only when this is the method by which an individual believes he will achieve maximum value (which can be of both moral and physical kind). Given the abundance of other methods available in a market of individuals who trade in pursuit of value, this option is very likely to be unpopular, deemed too expensive, too much of a hassle, too risky or simply too immoral.

In addition, considering that anarcho-capitalists wont succeed in building such a free market without convincing enough people to believe that coercion is immoral (because this is the only way they can stop believing in the justifiability of government) it follows that if a laissez faire free market is established it will be consisted of people who largely find non-coercion to be immoral and furthermore risky, expensive and unpopular. Compared with the fact that coercion in a current government-led society is a norm rather than an act unlikely to happen, free market is degrees of magnitude more desirable to anyone who cares about pursuing the maximum of his values - hence every human.

Free Market is the path of least resistance *because* it is a path with least coercion.

And the only way it could not be the path of least resistance is if people were not acting in pursuit of maximum value - which is impossible - because acting this way is human nature - inescapable.

In summary, there is a connection between human nature and the moral of non-coercion in that by the virtue of being what they are humans are more likely to find the path of non-coercion to be the path of least resistance than any other method of pursuing the maximum of value.

This may seem to be a merely philosophical and theoretical statement, but it relies on certain fundamental testable axioms which if proven true prove the statement above. Those axioms are the presented definition of nature, natural laws, the three descriptions of processes and properties inherent in human nature and the link between coercion and destruction of value.

There is so much stuff to read, both pro and against my current worldview and there is so much to evaluate based on this worldview from my business activities to my advocacy. In addition, there are all these still not entirely honed out and contextualized concepts and ideas floating around, such as those presented here for example.

So I’m compelled to evaluate the foundational process by which I should be addressing these issues, the process of thinking, from which all else follows. I think that for a being that is alive, self-aware, intelligent and capable of thinking and deciding everything in the universe starts with “him” or “her” or “me” - an individual. Only through your own eyes can you begin to see, or through your own ears to hear. Only through your own senses can you start sensing the reality around you and only through your own thinking can you process this information. There is no other computer more important than your own mind. We must think for ourselves. I must think for myself. And if conclusions I reach disagree with the beliefs of the majority, that should be of no consequence to my discovery. A scientist with a new discovery will not deny his discovery simply because he is the only one in the world who made it.

So how do we discover? First, you sense, receiving the information from the reality around you. It may come in the form of light, sound, smell, taste and skin sensations. This includes everything, from what we simply feel to what we read (articulated expressions of reality which are fed into our mind). So what is next, once all this raw information comes into our mind what happens? I’d rather say what *should* happen.

So this is the three step process of thinking:

1. Processing new information: Raw information received, mixed with our personality, quickly starts constituting ideas and concepts. Arranging these ideas and concepts into a contextual pattern of some sort results in a paradigm. How do we do this in the most beneficial way?

The rule NO 1: Adopt as truth only those ideas and concepts which are devoid of logical fallacies and contradictions even after you thoroughly tested them by a scientific process.

2. Acting, adapting your circumstances to new ideas and concepts: Those ideas and concepts which you adopted, even perhaps a whole new paradigm, may demand that you rearrange your life to fit. How do we do this?

Rule NO2: Realistically evaluate your real life circumstances and develop a process by which you will adapt them to your new ideas, concepts or paradigm. You’ll likely fail if you just try to force the new way of living upon the old one. There must be a process of adaptation.

3. Consistently and habitually questioning ourselves: There is always a chance that the ideas and concepts we adopted, no matter with how much scrutiny have we initially tested them, contain some logical inconsistencies and contradictions. It may simply happen that we discover something new that challenges the old conceptions. This is why questioning even our current truths is important and should be developed into a habit. How we do that?

Rule NO3: Ask the question “why” all the time in order to maintain a consistently high level of self-awareness. For all significant activities that you undertake ask yourself why are you doing them. Ask yourself why do you believe what you believe? Keep your mind “on its toes”. This way you can hope to avoid the “wrong ideas that always seem right and are never questioned” and therefore allow yourself to evolve efficiently.

I think that successfully adopting this process of thinking can tremendously help increase your chances of success, gaining wealth and influencing positive world change. I did not yet entirely adopted this process but I am trying. It is still something that I was able to formulate only so recently and therefore I still have lots of practicing to do.

But I think that once I do adopt this process, I will feel like nothing can stand in my way, because when you think in a way that increases awareness every problem encountered may already call solutions forming within your mind, as if it was automatic. When you always ask “why” you make all of the circumstances of your life a part of consciousness rather than subconsciousness therefore having so many more “tools” to work with once you encounter a problem that needs fixing.

Nothing can stop a free mind that thinks. Nothing.

My mind + internet + pursuit of freedom + pursuit of personal wealth and happiness = me.

Being so tied to internet, with my work life, my social life, my pursuits I could feel limited. However, on the other hand the internet as the network of all human knowledge is also the network of all ideas and a perfect medium of idea exchange and propagation. I am a node and I am a sucker for ideas. And ideas are powerful. How much of that power will I be able to personally extract depends on how efficient my processing skills are - thinking.

Thinking is being. Thinking is what creates new opportunities for wealth, material, intellectual and spiritual. As beings that think we are an embodiment of ideas. The sooner an individual realizes this the sooner will its potential to grow more powerful.

The more I realize how important it is to think of myself as an individual the more capable I become at critically observing that which I am, by some default, supposed to belong or adhere to. I think therefore I am. I am therefore I am free. Nothing and nobody can take that away. Freedom comes from a free mind, not from the external reality. If you are a slave, yet your mind is free, you are free. If you are free yet your mind is not, you are a slave. And sooner or later, reality as it relates to your freedom will reflect the state of your mind.

Therefore my destiny is becoming clearer and clearer. It is to free my mind and then help others free theirs. This will be a process of creating value by helping others be capable of creating value so that they too can help others create more value - until this world as a whole is free.

It is not enough to have an open mind. A Free Mind is the real objective. Free as in freedom.

A video I just found very nicely and clearly explains the philosophy of Liberty that I now fully believe in.

Philosophy of Liberty video - get it here
A number of formats available, from flash to mp4Pay attention and enjoy.

As american F16s circle above my city in this otherwise peaceful night, I am filled with curiosity. I wonder about a man so important to have 3500 secret agents, 600 security officers, 200 armed guards, 2 F16s, one helicopter, an army of Croatian police, AVAX plane, a war boat docked at stand by on the Adriatic, a nearby NATO base on stand by and more.. protecting him. George Bush is a man accused of many things, from countless deaths and chaos in Iraq to pushing the world into this invisible yet potentially devastating and perpetual “war on terror”.

But I wonder.. about a man who hugs a “bunny” while people mourn the deaths of their soldiers in Iraq..

I’ve originally seen this image in a video about his goofs and couldn’t help but think, this “evil” man is.. just a man after all. It’s just that it is hard for people to cut to that point, when there is such a huge layer of blame /associated with him. He is the leader. He has the power to approve starting a war. He has the power to influence the masses, because the masses listen to him. And if the masses suddenly start disliking what he is saying or the consequences of what he was doing, they’ll turn on the hate.But you are forgetting one thing, and this is perhaps more specific in case of Bush to the people in the USA: It is YOU.Who gives and maintains the power of the government, but the continued support and consent of the people being governed? Who was the one who let the USA turn into a nation in which someone like Bush could get elected? Who were the ones incapable of cutting through their knee jerk emotional reactions to 9/11 and actually supported retaliatory action? Again, it was YOU. “You” here refers to every american who at one point, or even still, supported the US government as it is, supported the war in Iraq, supported the system.

Bush is just one small link in a chain that is the US, and most other societies. He just happens to be in the public eye the most. He just happens to talk the most and therefore happens to be the one blamed and scapegoated the most. It is the system, however, that let the evils that happened happen - and YOU are a part of the system.

This interview is most illuminating. Listening to Bush speak makes me think that he actually believes what he is saying and what he is doing. How deeply does he believe it I don’t know. Even if he merely thinks that way because he or his coleagues brainwashed him into it does not necessarily change the fact that he believes it. And he believes he is doing good, no matter how incredibly illogical that view may sound to the rest of us. It would not be the first time to see someone do absolute horrors while actually believing they are for some good - to better the world.

It therefore becomes useless and in fact irresponsible to go around shouting and screaming how evil Bush is and how he is “garbage”, a “dick” or whatever else I keep hearing, when you consider the fact that he is a product of the system, nothing more and nothing else. Mind you, I am not saying that he is not still largely responsible for many of those evils. I am saying that the problem is much more fundamental than Bush (or any particular president or politician himself). And I am saying that the problem has much more to do with consentual citizens of the state than people think.

It is the easiest thing to do, point a finger, shout and scapegoat someone. It takes more wisdom to look deeper, into the more fundamental reasoning. It is indeed rare for people to actually look back at themselves and ask themselves what they might have done to let things be the way they are in their country and the world at large.
Masses of people continue to believe totally incredible things, like that aggression is necessary to protect from aggression, that your nation is better than other nations, that we are being taxed by the state for the common good regardless of having no control over the money we pay for that “good”, that ignorance is strenght because “politics is boring and you’d just rather spend your life having as much fun as possible”, that slavery is freedom because they protect you from threats, that war is peace as long as they’re showing you enough images of a plane crashing into a skyscraper…

Tell me.. who is the evil one here? Some of us could blame ourselves as much as we could blame Bush. For our stupidity, ignorance, closed mindedness, idiocy and apathy. Interestingly some of those terms fit very well to Bush as well, because, after all, he is fundamentally no different than you.

I was bashing on Croatia entering NATO and EU in my last post, without asking the people for opinion and I was saying that democracy is a sham. It indeed is, but it is not only the people in the government that we can blame for such a state of things, we can blame everyone whose belief, consent and support led us to such a state. This is our world. It is not a world built only by the presidents, dictators and big corporations - it is the world built by all of the people living in it. The power that is being concentrated is only the consequence of people being incapable to believe in power of their own, in true freedom and individuality of their own and in the responsibility which that carries.

That said, NATO, EU, ongoing power grabs between super powers - it can hardly be stopped so easily. In fact, considering the context of the world we’ve built, it is even to an extent understandable why does a military alliance like NATO exist, why are countries such as Croatia so eager to join EU. It only takes looking at the global picture of the world as it is to understand the reasons. And if you don’t like it, what are you gonna do about it? Shout angrily on the streets with immature parolas like “Fuck Bush”? It might make you temporarily feel better, but it will not move you an inch towards the solution.

The solution is something more fundamental, but we have to accept that what took us or our predecessors centuries to build cannot and should not be teared down over night. Not only would that be disastrous, but it would lead us into an even worse situation for which, again, we could blame ourselves, not just the power hungry politicians seizing their opportunities. We have to learn to be wise adapters and world changers at the same time, balancing between the two. You build your freedom and success in the world little by little through a careful balancing act between using the system and defying the system while spreading the truly world changing ideas whenever possible and sufficiently safe.

We have to start the process and be firm in pursuing its continuation. We have to make changing the world a part of our lifestyle. And we have to know our direction in order for that pursuit to have any meaning (which immediately writes off the angry mobs of “anti-globalists”).

The world sucks? Well, maybe it is partly because you suck too. How about that? Now what are you gonna do about it? Shout at someone or change yourself?

I believe that to change the world we first have to change ourselves. Humanity is nothing but a consistence of human individuals. If it sucks, it just means too many of us suck and need to become better.

Bucharest NATO conference is over and the relevant results for the country I live in, Croatia, is that it got an invite. How nice. Considering we are also a candidate for accession into the EU, it looks like we’re proceeding quite well with our “western integration”. In fact, we’re getting a visit, right here in Zagreb, where I happen to live, by Bush himself. And what do we get for that? I mean we the actual citizens, the people living and working in this city and this country? We get overt security measures a traffic halt and an old lady in a village being policed because ONCE a while ago she rented a house to a guy who is apparently a muslim or something to that effect (don’t quote me on that, this is effectively heresay, but I would not wonder if it’s true). Interestingly that happens to be the village I lived in prior to Zagreb.

What is that old lady guilty of for having her property and freedom violated this way for this so special of an occassion? What right does the state or anyone have to interfere?

Anyway, in Croatia, a lot of people, at least passively, seem to object to the European Union, or just don’t care. Same is with NATO. In fact, according to this news story thousands of “anti-imperialist” protesters will be waiting for Bush, protesting against our joining of NATO and pointing out that we may merely be becoming pawns in the larger game. Tell me about it!

Sure, let’s not jump into conspiracy theories. You know, uniting the world into a World Union ruled by the elite of the few etc. Hey, I didn’t mention Lizards! GTFO! The mere fact that we are preparing to enter both EU and NATO despite major opposition of citizens of this country just goes to show what a freaking sham democracy really is. Sure.. we get to elect our leaders every few years, but it’s more like a parade held for us at the end of which we get to choose whose parade we liked better. Absolutely worthless.

Our government, the same one which is supposed to be protecting us from ourselves, is leading us into unions which are just as “democratic” as ours. So democratic in fact, that 70% opinion of the citizens against the EU means we still need to enter EU. Hmm.. reminds me of another curious organization, ISO, also known as I Sold Out. Yes, that is democracy my friends. Worthless piece of crap propaganda. You have an opinion? You voted? Oh cool, good boy. Tough though, I think we don’t like your vote so we might as well proceed as planned, why don’t you go back to your ignorant routine? Oh you’re such a good citizen.

Update: Bush visits on Friday, that is today, and the preparations were even worse than I initially thought. People were ordered by the police to shut down their windows, to not dry their clothes on their own wires, to park their cars away from the streets part of the route he will pass on. They moved trash containers, polished up the trees, renewed the road markings. Everything apparently had to be absolutely perfect. I can understand that for someone of his influence high security measures may be justified, but some of these measures don’t seem to have as much to do with security as much with creating some sort of an unrealistically and ridiculously perfect image of Zagreb to Bush.

I talked recently about the harms of government intervention. Well I’ve got a nice example these days right here in my city, of government essentially interrupting normal lives of people, even beyond reasonable necessity just to please Bush, because who is an individual citizen of the City of Zagreb compared to Bush? Might as well say nobody. 10 million Kunas (about 2.1 million USD) is being spent on accomodating Bush - that’s 2.1 million dollars of taxpayers money. How is this visit for the benefit of the community? How is this for the so called “common good”? Why is anyone morally obliged to pay the government for these kinds of ventures?

Does joining NATO justify that? As I explained above, absolutely not. NATO was not the choice of the people. Joining NATO is an arbitrary decision between our government and NATO. We essentially have no part in it. People are calling for a referendum and all our premier can say to that is that referendums aren’t appropriate when the sovereignity of the country is not in question (as is the case with EU), since NATO is not a union or states and this is not an accession. However, this ignores the fact that by joining NATO we deny ourselves the ability to be neutral should the world powers be pushed into some sort of a conflict, not to mention that we would be essentially the ones potentially dealing with Kosovo crisis should it emerge (it’s part of the reason why Croatia and Albania are being allied with NATO now), to restrain Serbia.

When this big picture is considered, who can think of the interests of the people? Who cares about them really? I see them pretty much as just a helpless group that happen to be in that given pot, and the pot is being moved back and forth as the powers that are please or see fit. If this doesn’t show what a sham democracy really is then I don’t know what does. When the show called “elections” is over, it’s just business as usual.

But that’s the world to which ignorant masses concede to. There you have it. Enjoy your crippled freedom. May Zagreb citizens see and grasp the contrast between their puny individual self and the power of two states colluding in mutual festivities over an event they had no say about.

Welcome to your new province Mr. President. I hope we don’t serve you well.

Ever since Open Document Format was standardized by ISO and Microsoft started pushing its own “open” format a significant portion of the Free Software community has been buzzing about how bloated, not really open and ultimately redundant Microsoft’s format is and moreover how Microsoft is using various “dirty tricks” to get its format approved as an open standard. I have to say I wasn’t among the many vocal on this issue and that the whole process of standardization, like much of other legal mumbo jumbo is both beyond my interest and skill.

However, certain thoughts and views I’ve adopted recently make me compelled to say something about the adoption of OOXML relative to ODF with regards to ISO standardization. Due to numerous signs showing how corruptible the process of standardization can be and especially if ISO finally decides to adopt OOXML as the standard despite these concerns, ISO may very well lose a chunk of respect as a standards body. Be that as it may, I wonder how much does ISO really matter here or at least just how much *should* it really matter anyway.

Regardless of whether a particular file format is recognized as a standard, if it is used commonly enough it will be a de-facto standard, a market standard. So even if OOXML becomes a formally approved and recognized standard, as long as laws do not mandate its use in one way or another, if enough people ignore it, it will be a dud. Conversely, if the market recognizes and largely uses ODF as the format of choice it will still be ODF that matters, and all this hoopla over OOXML might end up being over what basically amounts to a piece of paper (or a large block of paper, whatever these bureaucrats need to fill out in order to declare a standard).

And speaking of governments mandating use of a formally recognized standard, being already standardized ODF is at no particular disadvantage here. Furthermore, should the market accept ODF to a large enough extent compared to OOXML governments may be compelled to, even if they mandate anything, choose ODF.

So my proposal is quite simple in words, but will require a significant amount of both advocacy AND good marketing effort to pull out. The proposal is to keep fighting for the ultimate win of ODF in the market regardless of what ISO decides about it. If their format is approved, Microsoft will surely use that fact in their own marketing. However, if we can point out how corrupt the process leading to their approval was and furthermore reject the ISO decision as valid and then proceed to bypass it through market forces, advertising ODF as the true open format and all the advantages that come with that, being approved by ISO might not turn out to be such a compelling point.

Supporting open standards does not equate to supporting standards for which ISO said are standards. It means supporting technologies which were designed to be fully interoperable, compatible and transparently documented so as to be fitting for use by a large number of people without forming a situation of lock-in to a particular company. An open standard is a technology whose inner workings are completely transparent and whose use does not constitute dependance on any particular product or company, and which is commonly used in the market.

ODF is all that, except that there is still work to be done on the last part. OOXML on the other hand is not all that, and wont be no matter what stamp ISO puts on it. This will be just as true today as it will be after monday’s ISO decision.

This might sound like stating the obvious. Of course we’ll continue pushing ODF regardless of what ISO decides. However, if we can just declare en masse that we do not recognize ISO’s decision on OOXML (should it approve) and not let the market get the false message that their approval would send about OOXML, Microsoft may just find that all their effort spent on getting themselves stamped by ISO wasn’t counting for much. And that’s exactly what I am hoping for. Use the market to devalue the ISO’s decision and therefore disarm Microsoft’s OOXML campaign.

For non-regular visitors the author of the above and this blog, is the founder and maintainer of Libervis Network (which includes Libervis.com and Nuxified.org) and a member of GNU/Linux Matters. I am a technology enthusiast and a freedom advocate.