From: ping@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Shiping Zhang)
Subject: Re: Protection bill
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 00:18:06 GMT

In article <27AUG199210003418@phobos.ucc.umass.edu> s9874194@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194) writes:
>In article <29145@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU>, eshen@.stern.nyu.edu (Eileen Shen) writes...
>> 
>>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

  Too bad. It's in every dictionary.
 
>>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

  It's up to the person self whether or not he/sh is going to be fooled.
 
>>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

  Only if the constitution (if there is one) is respected and obeyed
  by the government first.

>>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

  What else should it be read?
 
>>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

  I believe you can freely walk on the street of Beijing anytime you want.
  The question is whether or not you want to.  The answer seems "No" as
  shown by the fact that you are not walking on the street of Beijing.

>>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

  It's because of heterogeniety?

>>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

  Who is the fool, or is fooled?

-ping