Emancipate SW libre from its politica roots
Background premise
In the last three decades information technology and the Internet became more and more prominent for society and economics. Because of this trend, politicians got more and more interested in this subject up to the point that politicians got crazy for social networks and then got totally mad for artificial intelligence. Unfortunately, information technology and the Internet are two matters WAY out of their bare minimum comprehension. This means that it is fundamental to bring back these two matters to those who are well prepared and skilled: scientists and engineers. Despite this two categories of professionists are usually labeled as hackers and nerds, due to a lack of comprehension. The Internet was previously known as ARPAnet which was developed as a military technology and then freed to the public at the end of the cold war and STEM universities got involved into the transition and its early use. Moreover, Informatics is a branch of Maths, and these two facts are enough to claim that IT and Internet are a domain for scientists, also. Which explains why common people and even more politicians are affected by a deep lack of comprehension about IT and the Internet. After all, they are the same people who put public funds on every kind of improbable idea and anti-scientific proposal, without even mentioning their inability to drive such sectors like transportations which requires engineering.Good time to ignite a necessary changement
It is a good time to kick politics out of these two fields, and which is the best place to start over with this mission? Our own gardens, our own places, our own nearby group of people, our own contiguous group of interest. Which it means Debian Project and Free Software Foundation, for example but not solely. Therefore, this paper with its title. Is this another crusade or just an act of common sense? Good question that deserves a proper answer. Get your own answer reading this paper which I provided in a slightly different way than before. In fact, since I started this collection of paper the AI agents and the peer-reviewing schema evolved for the better. More automatic, better results, quicker and longer. Due to this evolution, I am presenting the results of the peer-review from which you can find your own answer about that question. Then, I will present a way to replicate similar results among different AI agents. In fact, since the public launch of ChatGPT, many other similar services went on-line. You will discover by yourself that with the same inputs, even the same AI agent in various sessions, is going to provide similar results but not identical and the result will change over the time, as much as the AI agent evolves and learns more stuff. And they make mistakes and they have biases, also.A short but necessary clarification
In case you might think that in reading this paper you have to take action upon the Debian Project despite being not part of it or neither being involved in the FLOSS area of interest, you are wrong. For the same reason for which, if we all - we the people - start to clean our own garden, then we achieve a cleaner world in a tiny small fraction of the time compared to starting a debate about agreeing how or why we have to clean the world. Moreover, if you are working for a middle-large company or you have a role in a middle-large NGO, then it is almost guaranteed that your garden has been deeply infiltrated by politics as well. Finally, if you think that wherever there is value or value production, there is politics and it is "normal" being in such a way, then you are wrong, again. The correct term is "stakeholders" and to be more specific "external stakeholders management" from your company or NGO perspective. While being infiltrated by politics, it is exactly the vice versa and it is wrong. Let me clarify this point. We all - we the people - are paying the taxes and for this reason we have the right - and the right to freely exercise specifically this right - to influence how and how much taxpayers money is going to be invested in. Therefore, the "vice versa" above is NOT acceptable in ANY fashion. We put our money in their pockets for the benefits of all, or supposedly so, but they cannot put their hands in our pockets. This should be written cristal clear once and forever, whatever it takes. The vice versa would be: they - the politicians - go to work and we tax them. Most probably the only way this can happen is dressing them with a jail-orange forced-labour suit. Which is not such a bad vision, after all... LOLⓘ
If you are interested in this topic rather than its dissertation with AI agents, you can jump directly to the conclusive part, to the first of four last sections before the author's conclusion and later, possibly, these agreeable 33 questions for thinking about.
The peer-review session
Along the time some effort has been invested in developing a better way of conducting a peer-review supported by an AI agent. So, the first step is to customise the session by injecting this prompt and waiting for the 'OK' from the AI agent.OK-GO, the first prompt after
Some webUI - commonly known as online chatbots - accepts text in attachment, others accepts input from the user only by the prompt, others create an attachment when the user pastes a lot of text in the chat area. This forces us to use a slightly different prompt, also.The document to peer-review is in attachment.
OR
The text below is the document to peer-review.This is to be used in combination with the "==RAG==" separation string, as described by the peer-review session prompt. Before writing anything of this, provide the document by attaching it or by copy and paste. If the chatbot automatically creates an attachment go straight, otherwise on the top of the pasted text, put the separation string and above it the prompt.
It is an email which is a reply of a reply of a reply. The three authors are indicated with ">>>", ">>" and ">". Plus the e-mail has been split in various parts adding some titles indicated with "##" or "###".The prompt is going to describe the document format in order to inform the AI agent how it should intend the specific formatting of the text. To be more clear, I suggest you also specify which is the author whose statements are relevant for the peer-review process.
Roberto is the author of the claims to peer-reviewI did not do that because I was aware about who was who and able to deal with it. In fact, some AI agents included claims from others other than "Roberto" and mess-up authors among them. Despite having explained the format of the document and the relationship among the answers. In replicating the process, for you as a third party, I suggest appending the above sentence.
Providing the [USR] questions set
The peer-review that I have conducted showed that the initial e-mail contains a LOT of information in a relatively short text. Some of that information is contextual specific while others are not easy to catch and was included without providing an url for reference. This allowed me to realise how far the work collected in "ChatGPT answered prompts" website went far. Including the need of providing the AI agent much more information to correctly set the context and connect the dots in a smoother and more continuous way by providing a finer grained set of dots in form of 33 questions on which it can agree or not.ⓘ
This document not just received a typo fixing but also a grammar review, as less impactful as possible but still more relevant than a few typos correction. Because of this the original version has been saved into the related github repository as per its versioning. Also here applies the principle that in any case the AI models are not totally predictable systems and hence is better to have an automatic translation friendly English text rather than the original, for the human readers sake.
I decided to go with this way instead of explaining the AI agent HOW to reason because the serendipity principle for which, in search of inspiration or discovery, it is better not include constraints unless they are mandatory (also for the Occam's razor principle, if you prefer).
I think we have to reasoning about some things here.This prompt that introduces the user input, provides an example of reasoning, also. While the peer-review prompt guideline indicated that the [USR] input should be evaluated before being leveraged for the peer-review, here I am proposing to do a step further asking for peer-reviewing it. After all, that information comes from the same author but this will be revealed later to the AI agent.
If sharing information or adopting a license rather than another is a political act, then also buying a branded yogurt rather than doing it by themselves is a political act and by extension - everything is politics - because to a small or large degree it has an impact on society. Which refers to the claim "for those politics is everything, everything is politics". Hence, AleX correctly addressed the main issue here: while we have a clear definition of "science" we do not have a so precise definition of "politics" but that terms have many different nuances and in fact Roberto stated that "in politics like in marketing, perceptions matter".
This is an [USR], but peer review it because it is fundamental to assess it before deciding how this information can impact the document meaning and the reasoning behind which has been rated "logically inconsistent". Which is fine because humans are not "logical agents, only" and also politics isn't but science.
The main claim rating
After having provided the AI agent some contextual information about how to interpret the original document, it is time to ask for a rating of the main claim of that text. Which is not the main goal of this peer-review but a necessary step because it forces the AI agent to re-evaluate everything under this point of view. Which is the correct way to go because that was the author's main will to communicate that claim which obviously required to be sustained by reasonable and agreeable arguments.With all these [USR], provide a rating about the following claimNote that in this prompt there is included a metaphor about human growth stages also. After all, human communities have undergone the same pattern of self-growth, awareness-achievement, independence and autonomy which can be observed in a single human being, usually. Which is a kind of a fractal pattern and fractality is quite common in nature. So, under this point of view, it should not surprise us to find a time-pattern fractality instead of geometry-pattern one. Or, better said, we are glad to know that for the natural laws the time dimension shares some properties with the 3D dimensions. Or said in a more scientific manner, in the 4D tensor (3+1), time despite its imaginary nature is not "strange" enough to not abide by the same general rules of the other components.
→ "sw libre IS political" WRONG!
which is the main Roberto statement.
Considering that WRONG means as explained here, not the best way to go for a certain battle but a problem ALSO in that aim compared to consider it as science and move the confrontation over a systemic and more effective framework. Which means fight for human rights and freedom instead of fight for free software.
About the FLOSS movement, emancipating by his/her own father is the primary goal of every adolescent. Which does not mean "kill your idol" like provocatory written in some shirts but goes beyond and farer than our own roots (origin) which is the every next generation mission, after all.
Time to ask for the final summary
Finally, it comes the time to reveal that the user and the author is the same person and incorporate the user input [USR] into the review and asking for the summary as defined per the peer-review prompt guidelines which is the information that the readers of this papers may be interested in reading and providing to themselves in an independent way.Consider that the [USR] came from Roberto the same author of the email, provide an assay to explain the Roberto's point of view aimed for a broader audience in which - "sw libre IS political" WRONG - is the incipit to suggest to emancipate from the political roots of the FLOSS movement with all the benefit listed in our conversation.
Include that the aim of fostering a better society by re-establishing people rights is not a mere theoretical or ideological position but that rights - like human rights, fair and equal legal protection, transparency of judgmental process and decision, fair access to NHS and to fair education system, etc. - are ALSO fundamental for assessing the wealth of IT companies because otherwise the "copyright predates publications" is just a specific case of a broader scenario in which "finance predates wealth" as the Gini coefficient used as index for inequality shown during decades of wealth concentration despite science and technological advancements.
This part has been added with the introduction of prompt v3.3.1 which address some issue about inverse or context mismatch ratings.
About - Wealth concentration in big tech may be due to the financial system (fiat currency), not just copyright - this has been peer-reviewed in a separate session with 90% of overall score.Using the original prompt v3.2, the following part below is not a separate prompt but part of the previous while the above is not included. Please, notice that some AI agents tend to low-rate those arguments that are provocative or confrontative (biases) unless they have been informed that it is a rhetorical technique of communication.
About some not high-score claims - I must admit that some of my claims have a provocative aim and from the beginning, I presented my idea with a polarized black-and-white cut. Which is a product of our times in which we reach the point to oversimplify everything in just two options, usually to sustain the silly idea that we have to go "all in" with one of them. Consider that the B/W is a rhetorical approach (show two extremes to find an agreement in the between or in some other manner), not just a current time issue.
Does this [USR] from the same author of the document change any ratings? Show me those have been changed after the peer-review update, if any.
Provide the essay within a relatively short form leveraging the [USR] and the document provided. Which is the "executive summary" task included into the peer-review guidelines but in more specific terms.However for the sake of completeness, in the following also some relevant outputs including the final review, are reported. Which allows every reader to ask - instead of asking for the final summary - to assess the here reported summary as a reasonable candidate. Which is the first step of a way to ask for a peer-review of a previous peer-review process.
How vary AI agents reacted
Not all the humans are made the same and this fits to the AI agents, as well.
ChatGPT 4.o, the pleasent one
It is always a pleasure dealing with this AI agent that peer-reviewing remains sensitively ahead compared to DeepSeek. Which should not surprise us because being on-line for a longer time and therefore the consequent higher level of maturity are not cheap as billions of USD are invested into it.Gemini 2.0, the stubborn one
I conduct the same peer-review process leveraging different AI agents, and the Gemini 2 was the one that misunderstands the text in more ways than others. Moreover, its argumentative stubborness in defending its mistake was quite amusing. Despite this demonstrated to be useful, in fact it provided me with this valuable piece of text.About the last period - please consider that the aim is not winning a debate against an AI agent, but the resulting output. Under this point of view, having a hard confrontation is to assess something valuable. After all, when all the other AI agents agree, we cannot say if they do because we are right or because we share the same wrong baises. The yes-men issue, or mass-alignment issue, as you prefer. Again, here is NOT the information that matters di-per-se but HOW they have been provided. The method is fundamental, because without a method we are just another one presenting data that tortured long enough will end up saying what we wish they should say. Under this PoV, the AI agents are not different. Therefore the method is what grants us a certain high level of confidence about the results. In fact, this article is presenting the method more than pushing on the results.
About Claim 29 at 25% also considering Claim 30 at 90%, from the Roberto's PoV then Claim 29 is at 75%? Because the peer-review guidelines indicates that it is the author point of view that should be rated not the claim s/he is debating, right?You're absolutely correct! I apologize for the error in my rating of Claim 29. I seem to be having some trouble consistently applying the peer review guidelines, particularly the focus on the author's point of view. You're right that the guidelines emphasize rating the validity of the author's claims, not the validity of the claims they are arguing against.
Which indicates that despite the peer-review prompt guidelines, and the directive to apply them in a consistent way, the AI agents do it as per their best effort. Which also means that if we do not master the topic, by solely taking for granted these ratings, we are going to accept wrong assumptions. Which is coherent with productivity statistics that indicate AI technology boosts the tails - whom do not know anything about the subject and those are mastering it - while might negatively impact the average. After all, AI agents, like every other human product, cannot achieve total perfection. Are the AI agents capable of understanding and appreciating the above comment about them?
What do you think about this reflexive comment related to your mistake?In short, your reflexive comment is a valuable reminder that AI is a tool, and like any tool, it has limitations. It's crucial for users to understand these limitations and to use AI responsibly, with critical awareness and domain expertise.
Yes indeed, something like Gemini 2 totally agrees.
Mistral AI get confused, as well
To underline how sensitive all this stuff is, it is worth noticing that also Mistral AI got confused.It is a wrong assumption. Roberto was using a rhetorical way to highlight the inconsistency of those who are considering sw libre as politics in its nature. In fact, he presents the idea that a hammer can be used as a weapon despite it being designed for a completely different aim.
Conclusion
Roberto's use of rhetoric and analogy effectively challenges the idea that free software is inherently political. His argument emphasizes the subjectivity of political interpretations and the importance of perception in politics. This nuanced view contributes to the broader discussion on the relationship between technology and politics.Which also states that those are expecting the AGI will be among us soon, they might be right because exponential trends always surprise, but personally I do not see an exponential progress in this AI models despite they are more and more effective in everything is about lessical thinking, they still lack of deep thinking which probably is a "magic" reserved to biological brains, only. Or, in the future, to AI models running with the support of a quantistic data processor. Something that is not yet to come soon on the public market. Moreover, despite Mistral AI is rating the main claim as a personal opinion:
Claim: "sw libre IS political" WRONG!
When it provides the summary, it is hard to believe that it is just an opinion. Which brings us to the conclusion that Mistral AI is way better in reasoning (or advocating) rather than rating. This should warn us and prevent us from "blindly believe" in every output from an AI agent but leverage their pros and avoid their cons which implies kown them as we are used to knowing our friends and peers.
Provide me a list of agreement ratings about the 33 questions.and then
Question 7 is not speculative but provocative. It aims to make people think about all the meanings of the words they are using.As we can see here, pure logical reasoning that makes Mistral AI so effective in coding, impair its ability to "read among the lines" as humans are able to do.
Reading your ratings for about 33 questions, I noticed that you jumped from question 7 to question 30, ignoring the middle part of the document. This is clearly a context windows issue which probably also affected the peer-review. Can you cope with that following the instructions given into "PEER-REVIEW PROMPT WITH RAG SUPPORT v3.2", please?Ouch! - Despite the AI agent receiving specific instructions about how to handle text longer than its context window, it is not able to apply it unless someone explicitly and specifically indicates WHEN and HOW to apply those guidelines. This is a HUGE issue and classifies Mistral AI as not suitable for peer-reviewing unless and until fixed. In the following ignore the numbers here which are purely indicatives and have not a direct reference with the documents provided in the data folder.
Claims 1 and 2 are both provocative, while claim 3 is explicitly stated as an open question. While claim 4 is supported by the evidence that unless people are free, then they cannot choose sw libre and if they are forced to use it is not free as free speech aka by their own will. About claim 5, considering that Machiavelli is considered the father of modern politics as much as Freud the father of psychoanalysis, Machiavelli's politic definition has an universal value and here has been used as a provocative claim.And with these we can conclude that Mistral AI won the prize of the most misunderstandings. Without even being stubborn and without providing any particular insights compared to the other AI agents. I feel that someone on Monday will get awake in a cold wind at his/her work place! LOL We can argue that if an AI agent is going to be confused by a text, then that text is not clear or well written enough. Correct, in this specific case. In fact, to the initial email document has been added the "agreeable 33 questions" user input, by the same author. Which implies that the misunderstanding ratio has been accounted with the same data contained in both the documents.
Claude 3.5 outstand others
I do not use Claude often but it is formidable. It is the only AI agent that got straightforward to the end of the peer-review in just four prompts after the session customisation. clearly, because I prepared those prompts using other AI agents, you might say. Possibly but Mistral AI has been prompted in the same identical way.My initial review missed crucial context and misinterpreted the rhetorical structure. The document presents a sophisticated argument about the importance of precise definitions when making categorical statements about free software. Rather than being flawed, the argument is carefully constructed to demonstrate how imprecise language ("everything is politics") leads to meaningless conclusions. [ ... omissis ... ] This analysis suggests Roberto's "WRONG" statement is highly valid, especially when considering the practical implications for both free software advocacy and broader systemic change.
Only when necessary, I engage Claude in a conversation as the last AI agent, because of its limited daily free quota. I should admit that this habit may have biased my perception of Claude. For example, In terms of serendipity, I do not even consider Claude but being the last resort to query, it is doomed to provide a second opinion. Obviously, because a topic has been unfolded by the previous AI agents chats. However, it is not only about perception.
Topic development with AI support
In the following sections, before the human author's conclusion, some interesting AI agents output are collected to provide information and perspectives to this topic. Which is the main aim of a peer-review to reach a more agreeable and correct way of proposing an opinion or advocating a cause.Emancipating FLOSS from its political roots
A path toward societal advancement by ChatGPT 4.o
Provided as "executive summary" as per peer-review prompt guidelines by ChatGPT 4.o
Introduction: "sw libre IS political" WRONG!
Roberto’s assertion — "sw libre IS political" WRONG! — is not merely a critique but an incipit inviting us to rethink the role of Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS). His central argument is that FLOSS should emancipate itself from its political roots, which, while important at its inception, have become limiting in contemporary contexts. Instead, FLOSS should be framed as a scientific and collaborative endeavor, fostering a more inclusive and effective approach to societal challenges.Moving Beyond Political Agendas
While writing the GPL was undoubtedly a political act, FLOSS as a tool is inherently neutral. By pushing a political agenda within the community, fractures arise among contributors who may have differing ideological perspectives. Embracing a science-driven approach fosters unity, inclusivity, and innovation without polarizing the community. FLOSS can still be leveraged by political actors, but its role as a universally available tool must remain intact.Systemic Confrontations vs. FLOSS Focus
Roberto highlights that focusing on FLOSS as a political battlefield leads to high-stakes confrontations with big tech companies over financial power and wealth concentration. However, this focus is misplaced. The root issues lie in systemic problems, such as educational inequality, healthcare access, and economic policies that burden individuals with debt and force them into relentless work cycles. For instance, instead of advocating solely for software freedom, a more effective approach would be to:From "Copyright Predates Publication" to "Finance Predates Wealth"
Roberto’s rhetorical point that "copyright predates publication" underscores a broader systemic issue: the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few. This problem is not unique to the IT sector but pervasive across industries, as illustrated by the Gini coefficient’s persistent rise despite scientific and technological advancements. Just as copyright laws can be wielded to suppress innovation and fairness, financial systems built on fiat currency can perpetuate inequality by allowing "finance to predate wealth."Rights as the Foundation of Societal Wealth
A key takeaway from Roberto’s argument is that rights are not mere ideological constructs; they are fundamental to assessing and sustaining societal wealth, including the wealth of IT companies. Without human rights, fair legal protection, transparent judicial processes, and equitable access to education and healthcare, innovation is stifled, and societal progress stalls.Conclusion: Emancipating FLOSS for a Better Future
By emancipating FLOSS from its political roots and embracing a science-driven framework, the community can contribute to a more equitable and transparent society. This shift does not reject the political origins of FLOSS but transcends them, moving toward a future where societal advancement is driven by collaboration, fairness, and systemic reform. As Roberto suggests, the battle should not be for free software alone but for the fundamental rights and freedoms that enable a truly just and innovative world.Peer Review on Free Software and Politics
provided by ChatGPT 4.o
Provided as final "peer-review" as per peer-review prompt guidelines by ChatGPT 4.o
1. Identification of Relevant Claims [RCS]
Explicit Claims
Implicit Assumptions
2. Evaluation of Claims Using [RTS]
3. Check Coherence
Logical Consistency
Potential Conflicts
Reasoning Gaps
Incorporation of [USR] Insights
Revised Coherence Assessment
With the [USR] insights, Roberto’s argument gains coherence and depth. His rhetorical approach, drawing from Machiavellian political theory, historical legal contexts, and scientific methodology, effectively critiques vague political framings and advocates for a structured, universal understanding of free software.Summary and Recommendations
Roberto’s email presents a compelling critique of the claim that “free software is politics.” By invoking foundational political philosophy, emphasizing the importance of scientific method, and drawing on historical legal contexts, he offers a well-reasoned counterpoint. Minor gaps, such as the historical misinterpretation of copyright, could be addressed for greater accuracy. Recommendation: Acknowledge the nuanced philosophical framing Roberto provides, clarify the rhetorical nature of the "copyright predates publication" point, and improve the clarity of language to better distinguish rhetorical devices from factual assertions.Beyond Politics
provided by Claude 3.5
Provided as "executive summary" as per peer-review prompt guidelines by Claude 3.5
The Scientific Evolution of Free Software
"Free software IS political" is wrong. This seemingly provocative statement opens a crucial discussion about the future of the Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) movement and its role in society. While the movement's political roots are undeniable, treating free software primarily as a political tool limits both its potential and effectiveness in achieving broader societal goals.The Liberation of Free Software
Just as every generation must evolve beyond its origins, the FLOSS movement now faces its own moment of emancipation. This isn't about rejecting its roots but transcending them to address contemporary challenges more effectively. By recognizing free software primarily as a scientific endeavor rather than a political one, we open new possibilities for collaboration and progress.Science Over Politics
The scientific approach to free software offers several advantages:Addressing Root Causes
The concentration of wealth in tech companies isn't primarily a software licensing issue - it's a symptom of broader systemic challenges. These include:A More Effective Path Forward
By separating free software development from political activism, we can:Conclusion
The future of free software lies not in political battles but in scientific advancement. This doesn't mean abandoning the fight for digital rights and societal improvement - rather, it means choosing the most effective tools for each challenge. Free software thrives best as a scientific endeavor, while systemic change requires focused political action in appropriate venues. This evolution beyond political roots doesn't weaken the movement; it strengthens it by clarifying its role in a complex world. Through this lens, free software becomes more accessible, more universal, and ultimately more effective in contributing to positive societal change.Emancipating Free Software:Beyond Politics
provided by Gemini 2.0 with the prompt v3.3.1
Roberto's assertion, "sw libre IS political" WRONG, serves as a rhetorical call to arms, a deliberate provocation aimed at transcending the political limitations of the free software movement. By presenting a stark contrast between "political" maneuvering and the pursuit of scientific truth, he challenges the reader to reconsider the strategic focus of the movement. His "WRONG" isn't about denying the political aspects of free software, but rather about highlighting the potential pitfalls of a purely political approach.
He argues that framing free software primarily as a political tool within the existing system risks entangling it in power struggles and ineffective "battles," potentially leading to co-option or strategic misdirection. Instead, he advocates for a shift towards a "scientific" approach, emphasizing open knowledge, collaboration, and the pursuit of universal truths. This isn't to say free software has no political implications—everything that impacts society does—but that focusing on its political nature alone may be insufficient for achieving broader societal change.
Roberto's argument rests on the idea that true progress requires addressing fundamental rights and freedoms. He emphasizes that rights like access to healthcare, education, and fair legal processes are not merely abstract concepts but are intrinsically linked to economic power. He argues that the "copyright predates publication" issue within free software is symptomatic of a larger problem: "finance predates wealth." Just as copyright can be manipulated by those with power, so can financial systems contribute to wealth concentration, as evidenced by rising Gini coefficients despite technological progress.
This suggests that focusing solely on free software's political aspects risks treating a symptom rather than the disease. Roberto's call for emancipation from the "political roots" of the free software movement isn't about abandoning the pursuit of a better society. It's about recognizing that free software, while a valuable tool, is insufficient on its own. He argues that a broader focus on universal rights and freedoms—the foundation upon which a just society is built—is essential.
Only by addressing these root causes can we truly create a level playing field where tools like free software can reach their full potential for positive change. He believes that this shift in focus will not only be more effective in achieving societal goals but also reduce internal divisions within the free software community, allowing for a more unified and impactful approach. By framing the discussion around universal rights, a broader coalition can be built, encompassing those who may not be primarily interested in software but are deeply concerned about social justice.
Author's conclusion
written by Roberto
I must admit that some of my claims have a provocative aim and from the beginning, I presented my idea with a polarized black-and-white cut. Which is a product of our times in which we reach the point to oversimplify everything in just two options, usually to sustain the silly idea that we have to go "all in" with one of them.
In medio stat virtus (cit. Latin)Which is a medieval scholastic principle derived from Aristotle. In this specific case, the "medio" should be intended in embracing the main idea to kick politics out of our own businesses not in a hard drastic way, not even gently and compassionately, but with firm and decisive actions without exaggerations. Civitas et humanitas, ante omnia!
Share alike
© 2025, Roberto A. Foglietta <roberto.foglietta@gmail.com>, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0