From: s9874194@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194)
Subject: Re: Protection bill
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:00:00 GMT

In article <29145@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU>, eshen@.stern.nyu.edu (Eileen Shen) writes...
>In article <1992Aug26.235940.21388@ulowell.ulowell.edu> cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi) writes:
>>Every individual has his/her own interests, which may not alway in accord with
>>nation's interests. To servive in this World, a group of people has to fight
>>together for the benifit of the group. Human Kind can be divided in to many
>>group, one of them is called Chinese. Being born Chinese, no matter what you
>>do, try to fit in the Westen World, they will treat you like a Chinese, well
>>or
>>bad, depends on alot of factors, one of them is the status of China in the
>>world. For Chinese to servive and thrivive in this World, individual members
>>of Chinese must be willing to scrifice individiual interests for the good the
>>whole Chinese group, when circumstance call for it. It is like bees, each 
>>individual bee is willing to give up its life, relase the stinger to the 
>>invador, the whold bee group is better serviver specis than other group. 
>>Otherwise, when people became extreamly selfish, the group is not going to be
>>as competitive as those that are not, the group and the individual the group
>>will not prevail. Ofcourse CSS should not go back to China, simply to
> 
>Your theory is fine, only to some extend. We all know what would
>happen if it's advanced to the extreme. During the Great Leap Forward,
>the Cultural Revolution, millions and millions of people got misused,
>abused, tortured, exterminated, all in the name of "group interest"!
>To me, the mere thought of putting blind faith in "group interest" is
>frightening: people like you and I became small pawns in a chess game,
>arbitrarily sacrificed by some grand social engineers! That's why we
>need to respect human rights, and to lobby for the protection bill is
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>a way to assert our human rights. Doing so send a clear message back
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


How? I can not understand the logic here. Under someone's PROTECTION
makes you stronger? Are you someone's Puppy? The word "protection"
makes me sick!!! 
Daniel


>home: the status quo is not ok. I just learned from People's Daily
>oversees edition that ccp is liberalizing its policy toward overseas
>students.  Give the protection bill full credit. If we did not assert
>ourselves, we would be treated as shit.
> 
>	Selfishness has its virtues. This has been demonstrated and
>proven in economics by Adam Smith and his followers who constitute the
>mainstream economists. Smith's theory can be summarized as follows:
*********************************************************************
> 
>	In an economy, each individual should do what he thinks is the
>  best for him and need not worry about the consequence of his actions
>  on the society. There is an invisible hand--market mechanism-- to
>  coordinate all the activities so that what is good for an individual
>  is good for the society.
>
*********************************************************************


Are you sure you summarized it RIGHT? I do not know any Adam Smith.
Do not fool me.
Daniel


>This may be an over-simplified summary, and any good economist knows
>the inherent difficiencies of a laissez faire economy (a free economy
>with only the invisible hand at work). But this point is still valid:
>In a society, each individual should be able to pursuit what he/she
>wants with minimum constraints. This is what made America great. At
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


So, you do agreee that there shall be some "Constraint". Then, how do you
define minimum or excessive? Is there a clear, universal cut? I believe
the line here should be a country's constitution, the law and the order
of a particular country, not some body else's.
Daniel



>least they said so in the latest Republic Convention, and it's also my
>conclusion after all these years of observations and thinking. So your
>theory of sacrifice notwithstanding. We are after all human beings,
					^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


I read it as "We are all animals." After all what is the fundamental
difference between human being and animals??
Daniel


>not some simple- and single-minded, albeit still quite incredible,
>bees, and we need a better theory to make China great in a competitive
>world. We need a free, democratic China whose full potentials can be
		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



Can somebody give me a defination here? What do you mean by free? Free of
what? I can freely walk on the street of Beijing anytime I want (may
be not on June 4) but I would be afraid of walking in the street of Mahattan
after dust everynight. 
Daniel



>made good use.
> 
>	China is a huge country with a awful lot of people. We may
>agree or disagree on what She should or should not do. But it's ok for
>SCCers to express their dissatisfaction on the current political
>situation in China. It is ok for them to vote by their feet, lobby for
>the bill. It is heterogeneity, not homogeneity, of opinions that makes
	   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>nations great. In fact, I dare venture to say that SCCers make a fine
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Not so absolute. Heterogeniety also can divide a country. We saw it last
year in USSR.
Daniel


>example for all Chinese by asserting themselves and pushing a stubborn
						     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>regime change for the good. It's not a flawless tactic, and it will
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


You are pretty cocky here. CCP only will make changes towards its own
interest. It will not bend to outside pressure. After all, 1972 and 1978
were all the changes within the Party. Mao invited Nixon, not because
of pressure. Deng launched the Reform drive becuase it was necessary
for the Power Struggle between him and Hua, and the reputation struggle
between him and Mao. Even if CCP looks making some gesture on centain issue
do not necessarily means that it is pushing around. Do be fool.
Daniel


>benefit some disgustingly selfish people, but overall it's a good act,
>IMHO.
> 
>>But worst of all kinds, in order to get better living, treatment from U.S.,
>>defame China in front of the world, is not acceptable morally, not acceptable
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>to those individuals involved.
>>China has suffered from all kinds of tragedies, please do not add another
>>one!!!!
> 
>The bill is a tragedy? It certainly makes CCP look bad and illustrates
>their policy failure, but I don't think it tarnishes China's image in
>the world. Your opinion DOESN'T count here, I am sorry to say. Whether
>the bill hurts China's image depends on what FOREIGNERS think of it. I
>doubt you have any substantive data on this. So don't be an Ah-Q.
>