Qin Hui free practice (1)

 Qin Hui: Practice free
Robinson a desert island for a person living alone, does not matter free or not. See Friday and for the two-Yan, the two do not belong to the road as of, the protection of their rights are not relative to invasion the master and slave to any third party outside and so were also glad for the slave-based, the solid no freedom at all. Ruofu the third negative freedom only self-limiting, since the main slaves do not want to, but as he master and slave for the passers-by, indifferent to, do not think the blade solution wins Robinson of Ecuador on Friday, then he can be a slave so that today he B men, and tomorrow do not even know that the slavery of this C indeed! is not a mere negative freedom the so-called three and there is no freedom. If the third person and Lu from the fight, fight for freedom and risk to others and ourselves. The third person who is also altruistic, positive liberty as well. there is no such positive freedom , and the negative freedom is not kept. as a positive free legal person, purports to everyone altruism Yan, Yan everyone ecstasy, the So who is the third person, freedom of self-discipline will be positive, and negative fight for the freedom of others. will be the heart of the public interest to altruism, and for the public interest to seek the right person has their own.
the third person, its Li public almost. mm become a hot topic in intellectual. But in fact, in a sense, the Liberal someone else's resort to works to world has always been diverse (the fact to determine), the world ought to be multiple (value judgments). Therefore, the liberals do not expect a certainly not to subdue others.
liberalism need only human nature ), to ; extreme statements are completely different mm The reason is simple: people do not exist in the market to see the wolves, but wolves can not imagine dealing with the sheep.
the history of thought in the Chinese and foreign, it touches on some of the extreme anti-free schools, such as China Legalism was the traditional idea of human nature are evil: like thick black martial arts, what is not legalism letter. Not long ago in the live drama Heaven and Earth will destroy West's to also described as The minister also useless, Wusuo few away also. Interestingly: Legalism is precisely the kind of extreme in the Cultural Revolution limitations of human nature that is the theory) is certainly not against charity, altruism, or is suspected to have the heart of charity or altruism, the truth it is just common sense based on a mm with everyone do not understand liberal beliefs of Mao Zedong as saying: ; a person to do something good, but not easy to do good is my life, do not do bad things, hh, ah this is the hardest most difficult! not evil is the most difficult the most difficult people to consider institutional arrangements in the starting point of course, only from evil people might look low-key hypothesis, but not able to establish institutional arrangements in the saint Yongshan this then mediocrity, his right must also be protected; political constitutional rule of law and economic Of course, one can not deny that as a gentleman, and certainly not encourage people to do bad people. On the contrary, gentleman's country-style may not be built; expected low-key as a basis for the institutional arrangements to put an end to the evil of human nature into the abyss over the bottom line, but the bottom line is that open up: people do not know whether it can strongly enhance the promotion of human nature, but at least it will never prevent it species increase.
case of economics. to falsify such a default), but not advocating that people should be selfish (and therefore can not heart about how hateful self-value judgments like to deny this by default). The default is that nothing can guarantee were selfless, there is no guarantee that a personnel matter and selfless, so the starting point of institutional arrangements can only be: If you selfless, altruistic, charitable line, of course, could not be better, if you are out of self-interest, this arrangement can also be In fact the behavior of your benefit, and not harmful to social welfare. Obviously, such an arrangement is that the market economy.
In short, virtue is limited, limited rationality is a kind of bottom line (or say the limitations) judgments, non-full name of the judge. It does not deny that the human being there (and possibly many) good and the wise, but only that people may (or may not eliminate this possible) evil is ignorance. liberalism does not deny with Jesus, but denied everyone is Jesus, so Jesus was Judas, for Herod the king can not rule out the possible harm, there must be Jesus or Herod the king of Judah, not the freedom of the victims (and by extension, that any people must have someone or can not deprive people of freedom). Conversely, the Crown must be able to restrict or even a person of Herod the power of institutional arrangements and crowd.
but such arguments in the final analysis, is a mm can not deny knowledge of any of these most enthusiastic goodness of the intellectual world of beings who can not prove that human nature is good of intellect, can not guarantee a person's goodness and wisdom is infinite, that is no guarantee that he is not under any circumstances will be guilty of selfishness or do stupid things, that is, can not deny the two contrary to liberalism, as described below, it is one of the elements of liberalism) the differences in fact not Goodness of intellectual people (or person in all occasions goodness of wisdom), to get proof. ten thousand Uncle Lei Feng is far insufficient to prove the existence of There is enough to prove that there is good reason to liberalism. liberals will not go against The will not be as Nanjie (assuming it is indeed as wonderful as publicity) like the case of the refuted. However, ;, and a successful cases of free enterprise will be a challenge to it. This is because these two or mandatory good.
In this sense, liberalism is indeed no argument: if you allow free choice of each person separately public and private Which is better? The same area is the truth: If an he was not allowed to argue, but simply to liberals arrested, that is, resistance, which has demonstrated great advantages. even the most extreme liberals will not oppose, but will respect Cishan and altruistic behavior, however extreme glimmer. But only to the Free priority doctrine the failure of Marxism, but it means the failure of liberal doctrine or the other can not succeed, or will be a be its ideal of the perfect ideal of the strict theory of : do not read doctrine, or, more precisely, common bottom line of social democracy, Marxist Left and the general sense of the dispute are in order to achieve freedom, after which the value of the above based on a common bottom line, have actual meaning. In the traditional two-party politics in Britain, liberals that Whig revolutionaries had long been a and, for the left-wing trade union movement (later the Labour Party) and the Whigs in common opposition. In Tsarist Russia, Plekhanov had claimed that personal. democratic state that but also against the Tory-style (rather than the Burke style) conservatism. as Plekhanov said, the two actually The so-called poisoning. Indeed, when the people have the liberal order as . Plekhanov pointed out that the Russia of the People did not dare to speak against such a thing, not a hair of a police dared to touch them, ;, Democracy is not much stronger. Is it to learn what state without freedom the pursuit of freedom, this is human nature, people of common sense, people of common sense. As with so free and still not satisfied, but also the pursuit of higher ideals, that is another matter. < br> on. This is the so-called liberal can agree to ; the . only some of the logic of those who pay attention to complete the face of this paradox directly, such as Nozick have clearly said: opposed by some liberal critics found the target. In fact, in the past of liberalism, especially for debate issues in the defense of slavery is very important to a point south of the slaves that is commentators often refer to emphasis is not black slaves as slaves After the abolition of slavery is also not accompanied by the abolition of free employment system, and truly down, no one because there is no through in the form of logic is clearly a paradox without solution. thinking can cite many similar paradoxes, such as: tolerance toward itself? deconstruction itself can be and so on. The paradox is undoubtedly a logical deadlock. not a liberal, open it to play. It is only because of this impasse, various anti-freedom of the theory will never disappear.
But seriously want to come This knot is actually just a logical game. at least for people under the non-liberal order, it in fact did not constitute a real obstacle to liberal argument for three reasons:
First of all, the logic of this paradox is actually a double edged sword, it is to liberalism and liberal critics of the trouble is the same: the ; force others who are advocating the than real risk of allowing ; over slavery br> Secondly, as liberal critics also clearly recognized, liberalism because it can not provide further pursuit, it seems less attractive. liberals understand this, so they recognize pluralism, there is recognition of the value of the other, recognition of this issue of the rational woman. those corrupted officials, whether real problem but only to drill a logical dead end, not a bit hypocritical do?
Finally, the so-called parties to establish any constraints on their own, so it can be used to make the voluntary structure of contracting out of its own. It is universal and better institutional arrangements and, at least in some places it is worse than the system they are everywhere. then at least in these places, even the most liberal mm transgression?
short, as the liberal argument that the real difficulty of the logic of paradox, it will also stumped its opponents: ridiculous. but in reality, the light large. The liberalism of the real difficulties encountered in practice, but it is in that is easy to demonstrate, the field simply do not demonstrate common sense!