Government and the bandit by fdjerue7eeu

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 8

									Government and the bandit
?
            Government and robbers (Reprinted)
?
        ?Study: High Yongping Source: China Elections and Governance Network
2010-1-31
?
   Some readers will be surprised to see this subject, the Government and the robbers,
it is not irrelevant to the two things? In actual fact, there are many similarities
between the Government and the robbers. To explore the difference between the two
before, to talk about their common ground, as the logic of the premise of the
differences between them may be appropriate.
?
   Between the Government and the robber's first common is that they are
free to take your property, not out of your voluntary, and there is no room for
compromise.
?
   There are three key factors, one "free", the second is
"involuntary", the third is "mandatory."
?
  ?"Free", the robbers and the government's
money-making a distinction between acts and open to commercial exchange. If others
want your stuff, he must take other things and you exchange as the property for your
compensation for the loss of the original. However, if the government and the bandit
to your things, they will not give you any compensation, white took hold.
?
  ?"Involuntary"         to    acts     of    banditry   and    the
government's money-beggars collect money with the distinction between
acts. Beggars want your stuff, do not give you any compensation, but you can give
him something completely out of your voluntary. By extension, all charities in pay,
are voluntary, otherwise it would not become compulsory charity donations.
?
   "Mandatory" means that you can not refuse your property
taken away by anyone, and, on how many can not bargain away.
?
   Government and the second robber in common is that the reason they can go
against your wishes, without any consideration, the mandatory take your property,
because they regard the violence as action backing.
?
   The only difference is that the robber's violence is immediate, while the
government's violence may be postponed; robber was the scene of violence,
and the Government of the violence in most cases hidden behind the scenes, only
when you do not obey violence will be coming out.
?
   Marxism, the government called the "State", their
understanding of the nature of violence in the country have the most profound: the
State is a class oppression and exploitation of another class of instruments of violence.
Backed up with violence, as opposed to those who do not have violent people, violent
people who have the power to have the (power).
?
   The so-called power, to borrow the definition of political scientists is that some
people have, influence or change the behavior of other people's initiative.
Powers to influence or change your behavior, the major ones is that you have been
reluctant to hand over handing over the property of others given in power.
?
   Government and the third robber in common is that after you give them the
property, how they use and dispose of such property and your business.
?
   Of course, one of the great ideal of human society is to hand over the wealth of
Lebanon's people, to surrender the property to determine how their costs,
and monitor the spending process. Unfortunately, the current human population to do
this not enough. Government from the hands of many people to get the stolen property,
put it as their own foregone conclusion and not allow the people given a voice.
?
   More over, these money are used to meet the most extravagant ruler, even in those
who have to surrender property of the people, experience a natural disaster, dying
time. The more traditional societies, the more serious of the two cases. Looking at the
current world, most countries still do. And so of view, different from the Government
of the robber who, a few Greek!
?
   In view of these facts, some economists believe that the Government and the
robbers are "Zeikou", but one is "roving
bandits", a was "Bandits" only.
?
   I think that all anarchists certainly applaud such a decision. However, liberals and
anarchists, although the Government is not all that good stuff, but the liberals to the
government as a "necessary evil", while the anarchists think that
the government was "unnecessary evil."
?
   The anarchist view, the government of this unscrupulous "Laus
child" can discard as Bilv. Once the elimination of the
Government's "root of all evil," we are still far from
ideal world it? Of course, the facts and reasoning show that anarchism is not feasible.
However, the anarchist criticism of the government is evil and not distortion.
Government can not because of the failure of anarchism and the robbers to their
"entirely different."
?
   Economists like to use cost-benefit to explain all phenomena. In their view, the
"roving bandits" to be changed to "sit
Bandits" because as "roving bandits" of the cost is
too high. Rob people every day, things took an ax, it first has to feed a large group of
thugs, these people every day and would spoil a lot of money. In the case against the
victim (where there is oppression there is resistance), the robber will have to pay the
cost of health and life. If the victims themselves and discuss a good price, time, and
quantitatively collect money, is it better?
?
  ?"Sit Bandits" do not need every day, carrying his ax
swaggering, income stability, and sustainability of, why not? For victims, this
arrangement has some benefits. First, the robbers to take away their property when the
only part but not all, even the money to buy a peace it! Second, they generally will not
hold an ax to the themselves and their families no longer fear for their lives. The two
sides have obtained can be considered a "win-win" choice bar.
?
   In addition, the robbers have gradually settled realize the "Terra
Tragedy" and "Banded" the meaning of these idioms
(Daoshi name those who have a government of people, often forget the meaning of
the two idioms, exacting, and finally they forced themselves back up to the
robber's identity). Over time, the robbers decided to give himself another
name from an elegant, so the "Government" was born.
?
   In fact, the above story is not entirely fictitious. Because we find that the world
does          exist         between         "bandits"             and
"government" between the organizations. We usually put this
organization called the "triad" (in fact, called "black
government" may be more appropriate).
?
   Triad of major two things.
?
   First, they want money, euphemistically called "protection
money." Of course, this "protection money" only to
the specific group. If other people here claim strong "protection
money", then a war is inevitable. In fact, this point person for pay
protection is beneficial. If the robber crop of crop of land, these people can not
survive, "sit Bandits" era back to the "roving
bandits" era.
?
   So here's to "protect" the word is not entirely false.
Lu Xun the Chinese history divided into "the era of slavery and firmly
secured" and "no firmly secured slave era." The
so-called "no firmly secured a slave", probably should include
those who are unable to pay the fixed robber who it.
?
   Second, they want to use force to defend their occupation of the site (if this site is
large enough, they call it "territory"). This defense of their
behavior will have a certain objective on the role of protecting the residents. If a
robber outside a local injury a "fee" and the local bandits will
act as their offense, and up to defend their dignity (or use the Chinese version, the
"face" ).
?
   Slowly, the robber would be the monopoly of violence in their own hands - in
Giddens's         view, the monopoly of              violence, it      is    the
"government" one of the most fundamental features.
?
   Sometimes, the difference between the Government and the robbers could only
literally. Some robbers start very ambitious, they are not only fighting to grab to eat
drink, but also wants "for good", such as Liu Bang, Xiang Yu,
Li Zicheng, Hong et al. At this time, a group of notorious bandits who dressed, in fact,
know how to rule in operation.
?
   Of course, if patients know how to rule, not the only factor determine success or
failure. Some of them won, wash away their "robber" stigma,
while others failed, in the palace of hell where they will be scolded for ghost
"Maozei." Chinese people are very know how dialectical, they
concluded the sentence, called the "winner princely loser thief"
to describe such a situation.
?
   The great ancient Chinese sage Chuang Tzu, on the similarities and differences
between the government and the robbers, see a more thorough, he said sharply:
"usurp state power by Hou, punish those who steal hook."
?
   Since there is no difference between the Government and the robbers, only
"offensive and defensive momentum differences also,"
China's strategists have the capacity to transform both to provide the most
excellent excuse, the most common one is as follows: "the world who , the
world is one of the world, home of the virtuous person, without loss of virtue.
"
?
   Of course, those who have jumped on the bandwagon, the opportunists are
temporary changed, but so, strategists have also not forgotten, the so-called
"good birds greener pastures, of W. Main and choose something"
is too. With such words to support the Government and the robber as between the
conversion sometimes is like "Cuikulaxiu" as quickly.
?
   In fact, we talk about the government and the bandits in common, they differ from
one already disclosed in the. Or, Around the similarity between the Government and
the robbers, in fact, "Gentleman, between care landscape."
?
   In most of the time and most of the cases, between the government and robbers
there goes the other mud. Here we look at the differences between them.
?
   Note that below the alleged "government" and
"bandits", are typical of their form, excluding the transitional
forms and intermediate forms. Max Weber's "ideal
type" concept is still very useful.
?
   First, the Government requested to the public, they have only a small portion of the
property, but did not like the robbers, killing them all or most of the property.
?
   Period of time, the government took away part of the money, and people have a
fixed annual percentage gains. To say that up to facilitate the Government to own this
part of the money accumulated has a name: tax.
?
   Interestingly, West and East are on one-tenth of this rate fond of. Europe
"tithe", China's "the Rites,"
said: "Ten to take a tax."
?
   Since the tax was born the day, it becomes the interests of rulers and the people of
Lebanon's main game. The results of this game determines the success or
failure of a dynasty and a cycle of change. Louis XVI of France, because taxes,
eventually took the guillotine, the United Kingdom George III, because of taxes,
eventually lost america. In Chinese history, most notably the reform movement,
almost all tax reform, the Government's strong and weak actual situation,
and tax status are closely related.
?
   In the tax issue, the rulers face a dilemma of choice. Excessive taxation will
provoked by the government, even revolt, taxes enough, you can not maintain a large
state apparatus, which the state apparatus, but also suppress the civil unrest of
protection against invasion and indispensable.
?
   Unfortunately, the rulers and extravagant, often making tax bell monotonously to
the "tyranny is fiercer than a tiger" that end. Thus, Lin Chong
was driven to revolt more and more, the government must raise taxes to cover the
huge "Suppression ask" costs, and more Lin and because
"taxes" and harsh exploitation, continue to emerge, then into a
vicious circle.
?
   Once in this state, the monarch and his subjects toward the death knell, it sounded
from far away. Maintain a fixed rate, the government is different from a fundamental
between bandits. Once the Government to break through this red line is actually
"off from the people", eventually will own once again be an
unqualified member in the list of bandits.
?
   Government and the robber second difference is that the government has a good
excuse for their behavior and dominance amassed a defense, while the robber is not
this rhetoric, or rhetoric is very rough.
?
   When the robber in the robbery will also shout, "I drive this road is, this
tree I planted, to ever after, leaving the money to buy road." But this is not
so much "rhetoric", as it is to rob the previous cry, to convince
the victim, or the ax in his hand.
?
   Government is different, they hired a group of hired writers, work for their own
rhetoric. Therefore, their rhetoric is very delicate, very deceptive. For example, there
is a man named Zou Yan theorist, proposed a "five German
reincarnation" of the theory, each new ruler came to power, will take some
stained this theory to prove the legitimacy of his own rules.
?
   In Europe, the popular saying is "divine right of kings", as
God has authority, and all you mortal, what is there to say? The rhetoric, Marx and
Mannheim called the "ideology", post-modern thinkers call
"words" are actually something else.
?
   Ideology has been adopted, should be also and the "bandits"
to "government" change the. Although his fortune in the
violence robber, but he does not want others to master violence, do not want others to
want to learn from, when robbers. However, he acts in obedience many
people's eyes to see is the flames of hatred, so he concluded that some
people feel sure, "he also desirable and on behalf of yourself."
?
   How to stop their resistance, and even acts of insurrection? Settled down for the
robber find, just control the use of force to achieve this, the cost is too high. On the
contrary, if by controlling people's minds, to control their behavior, their
cost is much lower, the risk should be lower. Fortunately, if started from childhood to
accept that a set of indoctrination, most people will be convinced by it. Of course,
where people are afraid of evil, to deal with such people, but also the ax.
?
   Government and the robber is the difference between the third point, the
Government for the people to provide essential public goods.
?
   Government provides public goods probably be divided into four categories, one
security, and second, rules and justice, security and welfare Third, Fourth,
infrastructure.
?
   Security is provided by the government's first public goods, if it can not
provide security such public goods, it shows that it is insolvent or not far away from
bankruptcy. Security includes two aspects, one against foreign invasion, and second,
the fight against crime. In both matters, the interests of the government and the people
are basically the same.
?
   Invasive often make the Government and the people more closely together, while
the crime is not just a violation of the public interest, and also the provocation of
government authority, the Government which must be eradicated.
?
   Government rules and justice is the public goods provided by the second. Rules can
reduce the cost of all social interaction, provide the legislative branch of government
rules. Justice by the judiciary, which they punish criminals, they also arbitration
disputes.
?
   Social security and social welfare, is the third public goods provided by the
Government, which includes disaster relief, poverty and other shirts. The protection
provided by the Government of ancient and well-being, minimal, modern government
to provide protection and benefits, it is all-encompassing. Many have been borne by
the family protection and welfare functions, is gradually being borne by the
Government.
?
   The fourth public goods provided by the Government is infrastructure. Individuals
and civil society organizations generally can not afford to build water conservancy
projects, roads, bridges and other infrastructure facilities, huge investment, only invest
in the construction by the government.
?
   In fact, all these public goods have significant externalities, almost no profit, no
personal and private organizations willing to provide.
?
   Government and the robber is the difference between the last point, the
Government should act as the main value of society and representatives of goodness.
?
   Society everywhere, but society is invisible, intangible, social existence in the
bustling crowd, the community exists in all social action. However, the society must
have a representative, the representative of the main government.
?
   Government representative of the social good in the Government to uphold justice
on behalf of the community, the government on behalf of the community to protect
the weak, unable to support the Government on behalf of the community can plan for
science and culture. Government is not the sole representative of the value of
goodness, but only governments have the ability and authority to maintain good and
the value of a mandatory approach.
?
   Governments need to maintain the goodness value of justice, order, life and so on.
If a government to those values aside, his legitimacy is at stake. When the Taliban fall
to the kidnapping of foreign hostages, they in fact are self-defeating.
?
   Only the robber would put innocent lives of the hostages, as the conditions to
blackmail others. When the Government and confront bandits, the
Government's greatest strength is its moral superiority. Government that
had lost the moral superiority, it lost his most fall back to power, it will become
detached from the land Muqin giant Aetna. When Lu Zhonglin for the Manchu royal
family say, "Yangzhou on the 10th, Jiading 3 Tu," the eight
Chinese characters, any "Kill carriers" like high-sounding
words, are much less useful.
?
   Said before, "Home of the virtuous person, without loss of
virtue" is an excuse for regime change, just tell the truth half. It is not just
an excuse, in fact, is a ruling on any minimum requirements. At least, they ostensibly
to demonstrate their "virtuous" to. Chrysostom Jade Emperor
made, but not many dare to blatantly innocent emperor. Because the Emperor knew
that the consequences of killing the innocent, is becoming the
"release" of the Jie and are "cutting" of
Zhou.
?
   So we all hope that the Government is "justice" in disguise.
Sadly, the Government is by a specific official to a representative, should they all line
such as Yao and Shun, almost impossible. Sometimes, expect them not to be
"evil" in disguise, people had high incense burning. This is no
government able to escape the ultimate fate of the reasons for defeat.
?
   However, such a request of the government is the eternal unwavering, if the
government is too far away from this goal, they have the right and the ability to
overthrow you.
?
   (Author, History, Capital Normal University, Associate Professor, Sociology Ph.D.)

								
To top