ClippingKK

It was not only the economic incentives that were destroyed. The political changes that had started to take place also went into reverse. The power of chiefs and traditional rulers, which had previously been in decline, was strengthened, because part of the project of creating a cheap labor force was to remove private property in land.

and the true measure of pluralism is precisely its ability to resist such attempts. Pluralism also enshrines the notion of the rule of law, the principle that laws should be applied equally to everybody—something that is naturally impossible under an absolutist monarchy. But the rule of law, in turn, implies that laws cannot simply be used by one group to encroach upon the rights of another. What’s more, the principle of the rule of law opens the door for greater participation in the political process and greater inclusivity, as it powerfully introduces the idea that people should be equal not only before the law but also in the political system.

THE EVENTS SURROUNDING the Black Act would show that the Glorious Revolution had created the rule of law, and that this notion was stronger in England and Britain, and the elites were far more constrained by it than they themselves imagined. Notably, the rule of law is not the same as rule by law. Even if the Whigs could pass a harsh, repressive law to quash obstacles from common people, they had to contend with additional constraints because of the rule of law. Their law violated the rights that the Glorious Revolution and the changes in political institutions that followed from it had already established for everybody by tearing down the “divine” rights of kings and the privileges of elites.

The relatively inclusive economic institutions that resulted in England created unprecedented economic dynamism, culminating in the Industrial Revolution, while industrialization did not stand a chance in Spain. By the time industrial technology was spreading in many parts of the world, the Spanish economy had declined so much that there was not even a need for the Crown or the land-owning elites in Spain to block industrialization.

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

Even trade within the Americas was heavily regulated. For example, a merchant in a colony such as New Spain, roughly modern Mexico, could not trade directly with anyone in New Granada, modern Colombia. These restrictions on trade within the Spanish Empire reduced its economic prosperity and also, indirectly, the potential benefits that Spain could have gained by trading with another, more prosperous empire. Nevertheless, they were attractive because they guaranteed that the silver and gold would keep flowing to Spain.

大夫和贤良文学的争论反映了中国后世王朝经常可以看到的一种现象，尽管“文武之道，一张一弛”，始终有“有为”和“无为”的斗争，但是这个有为、无为和我们现在讲的福利国家、自由放任迥异。今天我们讲的放任主要是给老百姓以自由，但是那个时候讲的放任，很大程度上是指给权贵以自由，放纵他们去聚敛，让这些当官的任意创收

今天很多人对于福利政策也是不以为然的，但是他们的表述都不会这么难听，不能说这些穷人穷死活该，国家没责任。他们往往会说其实济贫用别的办法更好，比如发展民间公益组织或曰“第三部门”，会比国家救济更有效率。比如说福利可以少一些，自由应该多一些，这样会给他们提供更多的就业机会。比如“授人以鱼不如授人以渔”，给他们搞职业培训，会比救济帮助更大，等等