ClippingKK

因为道家这一套学说提倡的就是“顺其自然”，以逍遥的态度对待世事。用庄子的话来讲叫作“不遣是非，以与世俗处”，也就是说我不太较真，不要太管那些是非曲直。我可以随遇而安，把一切矛盾化解为虚无，化解在庄生梦蝶、蝶梦庄生、似是而非、似非而是、难得糊涂、玩世不恭的态度之中。庄子做了一个梦，梦见蝴蝶，然后他就想，哎呀，这到底是我梦见了蝴蝶，还是蝴蝶梦见了我？最后的结论是这两者虽然有分别，但可以互相转化，因此我和蝴蝶也差不多。如果思想达到了这样一种境界，那的确是把什么都混淆和虚无化了。这个世界存在贪官污吏、独裁腐败等等，这都没啥问题，和理想世界的差别也不太大，看透了都一样。 有了这种游戏人生的心态，人们就可以在“儒表”与“法里”的巨大反差之间游刃有余，表现得漫不经心，以无所谓、何必争长论短的态度，适应说一套做一套的生存方式。在其他文化中，这样大的人格分裂或双重人格恐怕要造成严重的精神分裂症，甚或造成因幻灭而自杀的社会病，但在中国有了老庄这种犬儒哲学作为“儒表”与“法里”之间的润滑剂，人们就会心安理得许多，而且显得虚无超脱

New people with new ideas were crucial to this transformation. Consider innovation in transportation. In England there were several waves of such innovations: first canals, then roads, and finally railways. In each of these waves the innovators were new men.

Nevertheless, once in place, inclusive economic and political institutions tend to create a virtuous circle, a process of positive feedback, making it more likely that these institutions will persist and even expand.

辩护者总是说：“变法”是进步的，“守法”是保守的。但是，“法治”的本来意义不就是程序至上吗？如果为了“进步”就可以乱来，那和为了“纲常”、为了“革命”就可以乱来，有什么不同？

Extractive political institutions thus also tend to create a vicious circle because they provide no line of defense against those who want to further usurp and misuse the powers of the state.

without a centralized state to provide order and enforce rules and property rights, inclusive institutions could not emerge.

大家应该明白，秦制绝不是代议制——什么出身的人当了官就会照顾其所出身的那个群体，这是荒唐的想法。秦汉时代用钱穆先生的说法是“布衣卿相”，但绝不是代表布衣的卿相，而是代表皇上整治布衣的卿相。桑弘羊可以说是“重商主义”者，他本人也是商人出身，但他绝不是商人的代表，他只是皇权的代表。桑弘羊在中国历史上是以比较重视工商业闻名的，那时很多思想家都认为工商业不重要，农业才重要，农业是本，工商是末，他们提倡“崇本抑末”。桑弘羊则不然，他认为工商业非常重要，因为其利润丰厚，但是这个利润必须由国家垄断，决不能搞自由竞争，这怎么会有利于商人呢？

Books also undermine the power of those who control oral knowledge, since they make that knowledge readily available to anyone who can master literacy. This threatened to undermine the existing status quo, where knowledge was controlled by elites. The Ottoman sultans and religious establishment feared the creative destruction that would result. Their solution was to forbid printing.