ClippingKK

但是在法家看来，每个人不为皇帝着想那就是“私”，哪怕是杀身成仁，舍生取义，舍已为人，只要为的不是皇上，那也是私，其至可能是更加危险的私，即所谓“亲亲则别，爱私则险”。只有每个人都为皇上坑亲杀熟，不仅把自己的一切奉献给皇上，还要把别人的一切也抢过来献给皇上，那才是为公，即所谓“公战”

世界上所有的文字最早都是从音发展而来的，西方的拼音文字是这样，中国的汉字其实也是这样。早期的汉语，同音必定同义，音和义是不分的，越到后来，同音义异的现象越厉害，以至书面语和口头语的差别也越来越大，现在的同音字意思可以完全不相干，但早期往往不是这样的。汉语的发展趋势在这一点上和西方语言有点不一样

One other actor, or set of actors, can play a transformative role in the process of empowerment: the media. Empowerment of society at large is difficult to coordinate and maintain without widespread information about whether there are economic and political abuses by those in power.

Marx’s vision was a system that would generate prosperity under more humane conditions and without inequality. Lenin and his Communist Party were inspired by Marx, but the practice could not have been more different from the theory.

the ability of those who dominate extractive institutions to benefit greatly at the expense of the rest of society implies that political power under extractive institutions is highly coveted, making many groups and individuals fight to obtain it. As a consequence, there will be powerful forces pushing societies under extractive institutions toward political instability. The synergies between extractive economic and political institutions create a vicious circle, where extractive institutions, once in place, tend to persist. Similarly, there is a virtuous circle associated with inclusive economic and political institutions. But neither the vicious nor the virtuous circle is absolute. In fact, some nations live under inclusive institutions today because, though extractive institutions have been the norm in history, some societies have been able to break the mold and transition toward inclusive institutions.

北宋末年的蔡京、蔡下这些人，从政治脉络来说都属于新党，用过去的话说，都属于“改革派”。当然，彼时讲的改革派是指强化国家垄断的改革派，不是像现在我们讲的要搞市场经济的改革派。 两派的斗争产生的是一种“尺蠖效应”：北宋后期新党和旧党轮流执政，国家政策就像只一放一缩的尺蠖，无论如何变化，都只有利于权贵。这与尺蠖爬行时一收一缩，但只向一个方向移动不是很像吗？新党只懂得与民争利，严重损害了“阡陌闾巷之贱人”的利益；旧党只懂得放任无为，则使权贵得以放手圈钱。国家的“自由放任”只是放出了无数土皇帝，却放不出一个中产阶级；国家的经济统制统出了与民争利，却统不出社会保障

我们不要以今推古，想当然地认为不搞“右派”的自由放任，就是“左派”的福利国家。桑弘羊和商鞅、韩非一样，自由、福利都不给，他们是反对济贫，而支持惩贫的。桑弘羊是强国主义者，但是这个强国家并不是为人民服务的，而是为皇帝服务的

这就是陌生人打交道的逻辑。一次性的博弈通常是“零和博弈”，你输我赢甚全你死我活都可以，但是如果双方“抬头不见低头见”，知道博弈将无限重复，那就大概率会追求“双赢”，形成一种伦理关系。即便双方不平等，有长幼尊卑之别，但如果双方终生相守，甚至祖祖辈辈都得相处在一起，这个博弈就是长期的。不能做一锤子买卖，互动过程既然多次重复，肯定就要考虑长期回报，就不能一次把事情做绝了，否则很难长期相处