I don't really know you but would love to chat over coffee someday. I am Gary Shiu who used to write for Apple Daily.
政府組織有利社會是肯定的. Really? What about all those governments in Africa? Burma? North Korea?
Among libertarians, that claim is surely debatable. Why not private protective agencies? Is anarchy really that bad compared with a govenment, even a brutal one? Why not let 自願的互助委員會 organize whatever now is organized by the government. Why can't it do that?
Those are the main points of contention between those who believe in a minimal government and those who believe in anarcho-capitalism among the libetarians.
David Friedman, son of Milton Friedman, is one of the leading thinkers in the latter camp.
So to me, it is far from clear that 政府組織有利社會是肯定.
Even if government WERE beneficial to us, what's the magnitude of those benefits, and how do those benefits compared with other alternative arrangements?
9 則留言:
Dear K Ming:
I don't really know you but would love to chat over coffee someday. I am Gary Shiu who used to write for Apple Daily.
政府組織有利社會是肯定的. Really? What about all those governments in Africa? Burma? North Korea?
Among libertarians, that claim is surely debatable. Why not private protective agencies? Is anarchy really that bad compared with a govenment, even a brutal one?
Why not let 自願的互助委員會 organize whatever now is organized by the government. Why can't it do that?
Those are the main points of contention between those who believe in a minimal government and those who believe in anarcho-capitalism among the libetarians.
David Friedman, son of Milton Friedman, is one of the leading thinkers in the latter camp.
So to me, it is far from clear that 政府組織有利社會是肯定.
Even if government WERE beneficial to us, what's the magnitude of those benefits, and how do those benefits compared with other alternative arrangements?
蕭前輩：
感謝前輩撥冗留言，請恕我以中文回應，因為我的中文表達較佳(當然亦不好)。
文中的「政府組織」，其實泛指由社會成員自願成立，授權管理部分社會事務或執行成員間共同契約的組織；「政府組織」有利社會，亦是建基於「自願」之上。當然，按個人理性自利假設，而說自願成立之組織有利社會，無疑有點套套邏輯。
晚輩不才，行文多有不足，還望前輩多加指點。
民主的定義大家有別,
但在香港泛民無改錯名,他們是民粹+民主的!
曾己就他所談就地定義:"People taking power into their own hands"
if "people go to the extreme" then ....
以你的公司作比喻，有股東買了一手HKB股票,但年報又不看,股東會又不開,但為了保護他表弟的同學的家姐的同學的表弟的回憶,去阻止HKB裝修!
君不見靠直選的立法會議員在皇后碼頭的表現? Well, 果堆"民"的"意"得到尊重,但其他不激進的人呢?
黃老师，您好！
我是内地的一名读者，刚刚看了您的一些文章，感觉写得非常好。想转到我做的一个小网站www.jjxr.org上去，您看是否可以呢？
祝好！
butler
共產、文革、救國…政治家古惑人心總有漂亮理想!
無論理想怎漂亮, 動機即使善良, 如人們妄顧現實可行性, 盲日朝往, 大亂是意料中事。
從這角度看,"People taking power into their own hands" and "people go to the extreme" 和文革不是類似嗎?
回butler：
老師之稱是言重，愧不敢當。承蒙不棄，若覺文章值得轉載，當然無任歡迎；只是部分文章已於報章刊登，煩請指明出處。
回vc：
只有一手股票之股東，若無足夠的股東支持，恐怕不能按一己之意影響公司運作。
君若不同意部分黨派或議員的行事，可行使投票權表達；只要與君同感之人足夠，自可換上君認同之人。當然，君亦應尊重他人之選擇。
更重要一點，是民主不可凌駕私產，稅收、為打擊罪案而搜查私人物業等「特權」愈少愈好。保障私產，是發展政府組織的先決條件。
認為民主(選出政府代表的方法)與文革(接近無政府及私產保障)是兩種不同制度。
我支持民主。
但我們的泛民不是支持了皇后保辱者、險推翻了經議會程序過了的項目嗎? 5000萬以上的金錢代價己付了!
好比VP們為保位而trade off 其他股東利益, 去支持那一手HKB股東阻止HKB裝修。
文革的其一教訓是當nothing to lose的人群被manipulate, 所產生的後果可以很chaotic, 很可怕的!
我支持民主, 所以要留意我們的政治領袖、民意領袖們, 更留意其他有選票的人的心智素質, 因為他們都在影響我和我一家和我關心的人的命運。
張貼留言