Feline Humanity?

There I was enjoying my Sunday, sitting on the balcony, sipping my coffee after lunch, enjoying a good book and being proud of the achievements of the day. It was 3 PM and I already managed to have a shower. I didn’t allow myself to think about the rigors of the coming week, when I will be immersed in the minor but incredibly important distinctions in copyright law. It was a perfect.
I sure can be a lazy bastard when I want to and I do not feel even slightly bad about it. Only one who can beat me at extreme laziness is my cat, but then again he’s competing in a different category. He’s heavy weight champion. There’s a problem with being lazy, though. I can only do it for so long. After a few days I get bored by it. After a week or two it’s unbearable. That’s when my cat wins. I get to work and go do something, anything. It’s just more fun for me when I have a busy schedule, 12 hours of work planned in the next 10, lots of activities and lots of things I have to take care of, preferably prioritized in three categories. A friend of mine asked me whether I still look forward to working crazy hours during the summer, and honestly, I do. Not the crazy hours, really, I enjoy excessive boss presence just as much as the next guy. But the feeling that I’m doing something challenging, that I’m satisfied with the work well done afterwards.
What am I, really? A product of a capitalistic society, an overachiever, a workaholic? Or is it just human nature? Is the desire to achieve or create something impregnated into our essence? Implications of that are profound. If we achieve our goals and behave creatively solely because for the paycheck, then society has a justification to apply such pressure, to force and direct our creativity. Then we are like my cat, acting only when we get a meal for it. But if the real achievements result from a desire within us to create, then creativity and by that our satisfaction is directly proportional to the degree of freedom we have in expressing ourselves. Then an efficient copyright legislation should be based on facilitating free creation, much more than restricting access to created works. I should have just stayed on the balcony, right?

Brave new world

There are serious talks in Slovenia about not allowing minors under 16 in night clubs. They want to make it a misdemeanor. Naturally, I am upset. Not because I think it’s a good idea to have 15 year olds in night clubs. There are probably better places for them to frequent, places where they could be safer and get better education for future life.
That’s not a reason good enough to criminalize behavior, though. It’s not a choice the government should be allowed to make, instead of that person, instead of the parents. A person at 15 is allowed to work, take part in most court procedures, perform routine asset management and finally, that person is also allowed to choose who to have sex with (age of consent being 15 in Slovenia) and can also decide for an abortion, without parental supervision. We deem the person capable of making all those choices, to make a living for him or herself, but we place limits on how these people are allowed to spend their free time. Firstly, it’s woefully inconsistent not to allow the young to make the choice for themselves. Secondly, if anyone is entitled to have a say in this matter, it’s the parents. If parents allow it, it’s their choice, a choice they should be allowed to make, as there is no detrimental effect on the life of their children or others in the society.
Why do I care though? Is it really so important when such a small part of our freedom is taken away from a relatively small part of the population, with some decent reasons to support that choice? I care because this is not a choice for the better. It limits one’s freedom, while that freedom has no harmful effects on other people. I also care, because it sets another dangerous precedent which clearly says, the state knows better, the state is smarter than you and therefore the state can make the choice for you. The state is not only telling the 15 year old it knows what’s better for him, but also makes a choice for that individual’s parents. The state is making a choice, which essentially means, we take away your freedom so we can govern you more easily. Since it’s under the guise of protecting our young ones the people are inclined to let it happen more easily. Controlling the population with good intentions is even more dangerous than controlling them with fear and hatred, as it’s easier to disguise. And history has taught us, once the control is established, the intentions never stay good.

Coffee > 42

I’ve had a pretty hard group of exams today and I after some hard work I can proudly say: 33 done, 5 to go. They say we learn things for life at universities. They say we get important lessons on our journey to adulthood. Some might even claim we are irrevocably shaped as individuals, as the representation of new ideas and the connection we all share with our field of study reflects on our personality. Let me tell you what I say! When it gets really hard, and the date of the exam gets closer and closer, just add more coffee. It works. It has a very nice metaphysical feature which allows for prolongation of hours in a day, without loosing consciousness. It looks directly in the face of the laws of physics with a wild grin and says: Not my problem! On top of that, it tastes wonderful, just pick the right brand.
OK, I’m an addict. I’m past denial. Still, I like being an addict. Not all addictions are bad, and a cup of coffee or two a day won’t kill me, but sure will make my days sweeter. It’s a habit, a habit that probably reflects on the fact that I will statistically certainly die 37 days, 5 hours and 3 minutes sooner. But what point is there in living, if we don’t indulge ourselves in a bad habit here and there?

Student privileges, the principal, the agent and a pint of beer

Students are represented by a students' parliament in Slovenia. It is elected democratically, each school contributing according to the number of students, each political party represented according to the number of votes they get at each school. A very nice side effect is that political campaigns are held at each of our schools every 2 years (used to be every year) and while it can be annoying to be told to vote blue 15 times in the time you need to come from the entrance of the building to your classroom, there are also positive side effects. Political parties know very well that nothing buys students’ votes quite as nicely as free beer. Very democratic, all in all. Different kinds of beer are represented, according to voters’ desires, so there is no coercion whatsoever involved.
While we’re all fans of democratic process, it can get worrisome when the people elected actually need to represent your rights. Most of the time, it’s not a problem. State doesn’t bother with students, we complain on average level, just to keep in touch with our young rebellious side and the emo anti establishment sentiment. Sometimes, however, the government makes a big mistake and has a new plan on how to limit the rights of students some more, and students, of course, to keep it all in good spirits, organize demonstrations, that include some thrown tomatoes at the parliament building, some non violent demonstrations and, of course, free beer. It’s all jolly good.
Problems arise, however, when a government has a set of arguments, and students have counter arguments and contrary to common belief government actually makes a good faith effort at negotiations. In situations like that I would, if I was naive, expect the elected representatives to do everything in their power to protect my rights reasonably. I am not that naive, however, and therefore I’m worried. One of the plans of the government is to limit privileged students' work (a change I do not agree with), which directly funds the work of students parliament and therefore the work of our elected officials. I am slightly worried that no amount of democratic process will be enough to make sure our elected officials consider students' rights before their right to get their salary, which they, doing the hard work, taking care of our rights, so rightfully deserve. Besides, they need it for political campaigns, and there’s not much point in students' housing, if you don’t get free beer.

Eurovision – Could it be a good thing?

I did not watch the Eurovision contest. I just extrapolated it from the one last year and the years before that. The trend was easy to predict, each contest is pretty much the same. In order to get a lot of support you need to be a large nation which has a lot of people in other countries. It is never surprising when Germany gives 12 points to Turkey.
Nevertheless, when the winner of Eurovision was announced this year, it was a major slap in the face for all of us cynics out there. I might not particularly like Lordi. I might even consider them slightly silly. And I’m a fan of heavy metal, I wonder what my grandmother thinks about them. I’m absolutely sure Lordi would never win at Popstars, Supernova or any other competition of popularity organized by the big music production companies. They have, however, won the Eurovision.
One explanation is that everyone else was appalling, and that’s the one I’m seriously looking into at the moment. The other, a bit less conventional, and more likely just my wishful thinking, is that just maybe we’ve reached the ultimate acceptable level of Britney Spears clones and just maybe people are fed up with it. Just maybe, we have a critical mass of people forming, who can’t stand being told they should listen to sweet looking blondes and fake ghetto exports, who make bad videos and worse music and actually get paid for it. Just maybe there are still some people out there, who value creativity more than conformity. And finally, in my humble opinion, there’s much better hard rock and metal out there than Lordi. If Lordi helps people realize it’s not all the work of Satan, we just might see some non-conventional but nevertheless very good music aired more often. Or, the majority can just keep on licking a certain lollipop. It doesn’t make much of a difference to me.

New investment opportunities in the business of human rights violations!

If you want to get rich, start a construction company. Forget law, construction is the business of the future. You don’t even need architects. Forget complicated designs and calculations. It doesn’t have to be pretty, or constructed using advanced materials. The business of the future is building walls. It’s a great job, really. Government money, no problems with getting paid, it’s really easy.
First, you need to establish your place of business in a self proclaimed democratic country, that’s really hot on security. Stay away from liberals. Second, you have to make sure there are people living right next to that country who want to A: blow it up or B: just want a better life in the richer country. A good start was possible in Israel a while ago. They do have some issues with International Court of Justice trying to shut them down, but they have the support of local authorities, and a big brother. It should be noted that it is much better to have the USA Congress than justice on your side when you want to earn an honest living in construction industry.
Even if you’re not really into religion and suicide bombers, you can go directly to the big brother. They’re known for their openness to foreign companies, unless you’re Muslim, that is. They just confirmed a really big project in the Senate that will bring about a billion dollars to the market of wall building. Congress wants to invest another billion, just to make sure the protection of honest working Americans is impervious.
It’s the business of the future, I tell you! It is imperative that people know where their place is and the place of some people is behind a wall. Preferably a high one. Oh and by the way, for extra profit I suggest you hire some illegal immigrants to build the wall. According to statistics 15% of people working in the USA in construction are illegal immigrants anyway.

Pride and Prejudice

When I’m not in the library, or in the middle of one of the countless coffee breaks, I actually have some glimmers of spare time. Times like when I take the bus to the center, or just before I go to sleep, I need something to do. Something that doesn’t require much conscious thought. Michael Crichton’s State of Fear seemed perfect. The story includes a few dead people, global environmentalist conspiracy, some sex and a Gulfstream G-5. Perfect. Once you remember the names of the five main characters it doesn’t take much thinking and besides, it’s a pretty good thriller, I like Crichton’s style.
Still, there is an interesting concept described. We all have our own prejudice, some ideas we believe in, which are in their essence not a matter of faith, but really a matter of research. Most at least mildly intelligent people will agree that saying someone is a bad person due to his or her skin color is an obvious prejudice and shouldn’t be taken seriously. Ask those same people questions about environment protection, healthy diets, economic policy or any other field of science and you’ll encounter strongly held beliefs. Those beliefs will be upheld in light of contrary evidence, stubbornly.
Think about a concept like global warming. We all know it’s there, because everyone knows it is happening. We’ve all seen icebergs on national news, so of course the world must be heating up. President Bush is trying to cover it up, therefore it must be the truth. None of that, however, is a logical argument. How much do you really know about global warming? Not much, eh? I’m not saying there is no global warming. I just admit I have no idea.
When describing concepts you feel strongly about it’s a good idea to maintain at least a bit of doubt and re-examine your beliefs in light of scientific evidence now and then. Yourself. Hitler once fooled Europe Jews are bad. We’ve all learned from that, prejudice is bad and we should think critically about concepts and not just blindly follow the authority promoting those concepts. Or have we? Just maybe, he’s laughing his ass off in hell, seeing we still proudly hold our prejudice so dear, all those years later.

English, internet, communication and culture

A friend of mine asked me why this blog was in English. Answer I gave him seemed perfectly reasonable to me at the time, well because people outside Slovenia read it too. Checking my traffic reports, Slovenian domains represent 70% of traffic, so it does make sense.
Still, a week later, I’m thinking about the question. I’m by no means a nationalist, but I like Slovenia in general. I like our language. I still think the decision to do it in English was good, since more people can read and comment on what I think. It is widely accessible, as any text on the Internet should be. What worries me, though, is the fact that I didn’t even think about this myself. Everyone roughly my age can speak English in Slovenia. I read daily news in English, the Reuters and the BBC RSS feeds. Movies I watch are in English, most books I read are in English. Some of the materials for my exams is in English. I even have a friend who speaks English half the time. My former boss spoke English only, as he was German. All my discussion with business partners was in English.
What’s the point of Slovene on the Internet? It’s traditional, it allows expression of your culture and it is a part of your identity. But if your aim is to get the point across to an undefined audience, Slovene is much less practical. And what real point is there to a language, when it ceases to be practical for every day communication? Is internet therefore a force that binds us all to use English, or is it a force that allows us to celebrate cultural diversity, like in the example of the various language Wikipedias (to be honest I only use the English one anyway…)? Slovene survived about a thousand years of Germanic occupation, quite a few years of Italian occupation, second world war and 50 years in Yugoslavia. Will it survive as the principle method for day to day communication in light of globalisation? War as means of domination seem obsolete nowdays.

Am I a Capitalistic Pig?

I’ve been called many things in my life and some of them were actually nice. Some weren’t. I’m often called a free market loving capitalist and I honestly cannot decide whether I like or dislike the label.
I’m not a rightist. I do not support state intervention, I do not think monopolies are a good idea and I also think that state-corporation “cooperation” and state economic intervention is about as desirable as bird flu.
I’m by no means a leftist. I do not think the government should be the one deciding what is best for us, how our income should be distributed and I certainly don’t want to be prescribed what’s in my best interest by the government. In short, I don’t fancy Robin Hood.
What I want is a free economy with good economic growth. I do not care if there’s a wide gap between the richest and the poorest man in the country, what I want is for both of them to be more productive in the future. I don’t care if the gap gets smaller or larger, as long as everyone is better off in the end. What I want is a productive society that is also a free society where income is distributed justly, according to the share in the production process.
For that to be efficient I believe the state should provide basic social aid, so people have food and shelter, I want free elementary education and state subsidized universities, free basic healthcare, in essence all those things that make it possible for someone born in a poor family to succeed, if he’s capable enough. I don’t want everyone to be equal. I want everyone to realize their potential and start from relatively equal starting points in a competitive environment.
Does that make me a capitalist, a leftist, a rightist, a libertarian or a totalitarian? I don’t know. What I do know is that those are just labels designed to prevent us from thinking freely and force us to conform to a “school of thought”. I am not insulted if someone thinks I support capitalism. I can only hope they realize that doesn’t mean I support everything some other self-proclaimed capitalist said.

Kids...

My life is hectic at the moment, as usual. I actually like it that way. I started learning for an exam yesterday and I have it tomorrow. Long story short, I am in slight trouble, as I expected the exam to be easier than I’m now figuring out it actually is. Still, I had the time to have lunch with a friend of mine. I met her accidentally just outside the library in the university hallway and since we both hadn’t eaten yet, we decided to go out for lunch together. We were just discussing life, weather and other people, the usual small talk during lunch. Among other things, she told me she’d find a job in state administration very appealing. Why on earth would anyone actually want to work for the state? Her answer was quite simple; it’s a good way for a woman to have kids during the years after college. Since she wants to have kids at this stage of life this is pretty much the only option left to her, as a career in private sector makes it that much harder. She has a serious boyfriend and if it was just one “case” I wouldn’t be worried, really. However, I had a similar discussion recently with two other female friends of mine.
My plans for life are a bit different, though. Hectic exams, hectic career, maybe some hectic post graduate studies and eventually, when I feel I want to get serious, maybe a family. I don’t see myself deciding for it before I’m thirty, though. Still, I’m a bit worried. Not just about the sickening social situation that forces women to take inferior jobs due to a very natural occurrence of pregnancy. Another, more selfish thought dawned on me. What if the good ones are already married, when I decide I might want to try something very serious? I’ll end up alone then, I guess. It’s another thing to add on the price tag for my lifestyle. Freedom sure doesn’t come cheap.

On Patriotism

I changed my bank today. My old bank, nicely named after my home town, a bank I have been loyal to for the past 10 years, lost a client. Final nail in the coffin was when I needed a report on my previous earnings and asked for it nicely at my bank, after standing in a queue for 15 minutes. They sent me to another one of their banks, as my account wasn’t open at that particular bank. Yes, the worker could see the earnings on the computer, but before you ask, she was not authorized to print it out. OK, another bank then, other side of town, same process, same queue and same 15 minute wait. Only to be told, yes mister, you are at the right bank; however you’re standing in the wrong line. You see, just because this one is named account management doesn’t mean we can actually help you with your earnings printout for your account. Yes, we do see it on the computer. However we do not deal with the complicated operation of printing this out. You have to go to another line, which is for taking loans, since they deal with such print-outs. Breath in, Breathe out. Another queue, you know the drill by now. I get the earnings report. Guess what, they dare to charge me 10 € for it. One silly A4 printout. As you can imagine, I freaked out.

So I went and checked competition. Half price compared to what I was paying for managing my account. I get free cash limit extensions, no insurance costs, free personal insurance, free Master card and free internet banking, no ATM machine commission. Furthermore I’m kindly escorted to an office from the info desk, and as I explain what I’d like to do, they ask me nicely to wait in the chair with a couple of brochures about my new account, while they fill in the forms for me. Just sign them, thank you very much for choosing our bank.

That’s my story on how I switched a Slovenian bank for Austrian competition. The price of my patriotism was about an hour of my time and a free Master card. All in all I save about 40€ a year due to this, about 4€ a month. I never did consider myself particularly patriotic. Still, I never realized my loyalty to “domestic” companies is quite as cheap. I went to check the ownership structure of my bank, though. Owned by another Slovenian bank, 33% of which was bought by a Belgian bank and their share is likely to increase. I’m feeling a bit better already. I’m only 67% guilty of being unpatriotic.

Free to choose?

Freedom of speech, freedom of access to information, freedom from persecution, human dignity, right to have private property and most other human rights are based on a simple presumption. An adult individual can make a rational choice regarding what is better or worse for him. That choice will be inherently better for him than the one the state could make instead of him, for him.
Individual picks and chooses based on information he has available, his intelligence and his desires. His desires are by nature of things, irrational. It is impossible to rationally explain why you love someone or why you prefer chocolate to vanilla ice cream. However, the choice itself is rational in nature. You choose, based on the information you have available, rationally, which courses of action will be able to satisfy which of your desires. Based on the subjective perceived value of those desires, which is fundamentally irrational, you make a rational choice to satisfy the desire you find the most important. Now the ranking of those desires is different for every individual. Furthermore you cannot really tell in a quantified way that your lover is 3 units better than vanilla ice cream. It just doesn’t work like that. Since it cannot be measured and statistically described the choice has to be left to the individual. Even with much greater cognitive powers of the society as a whole compared to an individual and possible access to vast amounts of information, society simply cannot know how much you love somebody. Therefore the choice is yours. And since you are the one making the choice, you are also the one responsible for the result.
Rational choice is not the same as freedom of choice, though. If you are tortured and in great pain you’re willing to make a deal you would other ways not make. That is rational. The money you gave them so they stopped torturing you was worth less to you than making the pain stop. But few would claim that the choice was free.
The role of state intervention is therefore to facilitate an environment where equal opportunities are given to everyone to choose as freely as possible, without that right infringing on the same right of others. In other words, every adult individual should have as equal as possible set of initial choices available to him as any other individual, while that set of choices should be as wide as possible. Individual subjective choice should only be limited when it infringes on someone else’s right to make the same choice.
It is therefore up to the state to allow for free transfer of information and prevent undue influences on choices of individuals so they can choose freely according to their set of desires. It is by no means the role of the state to tell us what we should desire, because it is objectively better for us and more productive. Maybe I do not want to be objectively as productive as possible. Maybe I prefer dignity or love.

To trust, or not to trust?

We are faced with enormous quantity of information being generated daily. We also need information to operate in day to day life. There are, however, two major problems:

1. We’re not capable of comprehending everything
2. Even if we were capable to grasp everything that is going on in the world at any given time, there is no way to deliver all the information to an individual

Now that I’ve firmly established humans are not supreme beings, it seems the best we can do is settle for less. That is, we get the best quality information we can, at the lowest cost for us – basically the least time spent acquiring the information. Therefore we need someone who is paid by us (usually indirectly, through advertisements or taxes) to process the information for us.
There is a strong critique of this approach, saying that technology, especially internet, has made it possible for us to access information on any relevant subject at any time and therefore there is no need to put ourselves in a position where others tell us what to read. If we have the capability to access all information directly, there is no need to have a distributor involved in the process.
Therefore, it only makes sense to use distributors to deliver the selected information to us, if there indeed is an added value in their service. The value of their service must be greater than our perceived loss of value, due to loss of freedom of influence on selecting the information we obtain. In essence, we have to trust the big brother to have a more efficient process of evaluating the sources and combining pieces of information together, to generate the big picture.
The process is primarily determined by the ownership and consequently funding of the distributor. There is no such thing as unbiased. State funding implies filtering according to the will of the state, or worse, the ruling party. Private ownership implies reporting aimed at generating income rather than good news, and the link between those two is rather fragile. Those rare enthusiast individuals with good intentions, doing it for free, are usually the worst of the lot, as they have very strong oppinions themselves on how world should be shaped. The best we can do is pick a filter on a free market that we choose is most appropriate according to our beliefs. Some people will choose the “wrong one,” preferring, say Fox news to BBC. However, it is the same right that allows them to choose the wrong filter that allows us to choose what we deem is the right one.
We can, of course, choose not to use one at all. Despite all my doubts, I fail to see the practicality of that. I prefer to read a couple of relatively unbiased websites, especially those based on wiki technology, and thereby get a clearer picture, than by going directly to the sources myself, as I have no information to evaluate their worth, neither the time to browse through all of them. Besides, I can always double check!

Using lies to tell the truth

Just recently, I’ve seen V for Vendetta, the latest Hollywood action movie production. Coming in package with Matrix directors, fast forwarded scenes, superhuman heroes, totally impossible fight sequences and all of that happening in the near future for the extra flavor. Therefore, it’s just another action movie. You couldn’t be more wrong.

As Evey Hammond (Natalie Portman) says: My father was a writer. You would've liked him. He used to say that artists use lies to tell the truth, while politicians use them to cover the truth up.

The movie tells a powerful story about a monstrous freedom fighter using terrorist tactics to fight a government he is forced to live under. It takes place in a totalitarian society, led by a dictator controlling the population through fear.

Sutler (John Hurt, playing the dictator): I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want everyone to remember why they need us!

The answer offered by V is profound. After a hail of bullets is shot at him and he manages to stand upright the following dialogue takes place:

Creedy (Tim Pigott, a high member of regime): Die! Die! Why won't you die?! ...Why won't you die?

V (Hugo Weaving): Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof.

It is of course impossible, a lie. People die under a hail of bullets. It’s impossible in exactly the same way as it is impossible to believe that the totalitarian regime portrayed in the movie has anything to do with the society we live in. And yet, by using such little lies it manages to tell a deep truth about the nature of ideas, which are indeed bullet proof. It is also true that authority, whenever given leave, will strive to increase its power over the society. Individual freedoms are always the first sacrifice we make when faced with fear, of either terrorism, or economic collapse. So why bother with the fireworks, the nice explosions, fancy sound effects?

V: A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having!