I take Brown's point to be that Taiwan is becoming a lawless land and chaotic island. I have no comment on this. I have just one correction on Brown's understanding of Hobbes.
The prime concern of Hobbes is not about INSTITUTIONAL or GOVERNMENTAL design but about the AUTHORITY of the STATE. In other words, it is about the a specific criterion for a state to be a state, that is, its SOVEREIGNTY. The form of the government, be it democratic or not, does not occupy his main discourse.
It is much better to say that, for Hobbes, the government is the REPRESENTATIVE of the state while the state obtain its legitimacy through the authorization from each man under the condition that others make the same authorization. The later is his notion of 'social contract' which in some sense could be said 'democratic' if you insist, yet it is 'democratic' only at the moment of the state-forming. And this usage of 'democratic' is quite different from that the word 'democratic' refers to a particular form of government, the western style of parliamentary government.
7 comments:
哈,大人活過來啦
忍不住借地方嘴泡一下
淺見倒是以為台灣好像是反著搞
是"君主專制"的狀態下,用"民主的方法",產生了"無政府"
至於從"這種無政府"能不能再用"民主的方法",產生"君主專制"那種"理想"的制度
交給上蒼吧(笑)
推去他x的
這好像是布朗兄最短的一篇。
可見這個題目你已經完全悟道了。XD
去年我看了一本白鳥之歌
大提琴家卡薩爾斯的自傳
他是西班牙人,卡塔隆尼亞人
他自傳中有頗濃的卡獨色彩
書中講到西班牙各種鬼名堂、政治鬥爭
跟台灣的今天非常像。
不過書中他到後來也沒談啥卡獨了似的
只愛談他多麼以卡人為榮(總比卡陰好唄)
說真的台灣應該學他。
何況全世界至今聽過台灣比聽過卡塔隆尼亞的人還多哩。
大家迷王建民讓我很起雞皮。
好像他贏了就是台灣贏了...那要是他輸了呢?台灣人的愛與恨都太不自然了~
這麼愛台灣,實在蠻不健康的。那麼需要愛與被愛的人或感情,都有毛病。這樣的心態和這樣的人們,也只愛比較,肯定對非洲或太平洋更小的國家是懷以歧視的。還是連加恩實在。其實小國才可愛,我嫌台灣太大了。
(....說了不少,有點不好意思。...語調若給人機歪之處而與本板調性格格不入務必告訴我)白鳥之歌真是動人的好書,蠻溫暖的,我剛只講到政治面蠻俗的。他講到爸媽給他的影響令人印象深刻。他到90幾歲時都會想:「這件事如果是我媽來做,他會怎麼做。」他很崇拜他媽媽做事和說話的氣魄和能力。而他的音樂造詣完全是他爸爸栽培的。但記得他爸好像職業是工人或從事科技發明方面(待查)。
這句「"君主專制"的狀態下,用"民主的方法",產生了"無政府"」改的還真是貼切啊。
I take Brown's point to be that Taiwan is becoming a lawless land and chaotic island. I have no comment on this. I have just one correction on Brown's understanding of Hobbes.
The prime concern of Hobbes is not about INSTITUTIONAL or GOVERNMENTAL design but about the AUTHORITY of the STATE. In other words, it is about the a specific criterion for a state to be a state, that is, its SOVEREIGNTY. The form of the government, be it democratic or not, does not occupy his main discourse.
It is much better to say that, for Hobbes, the government is the REPRESENTATIVE of the state while the state obtain its legitimacy through the authorization from each man under the condition that others make the same authorization. The later is his notion of 'social contract' which in some sense could be said 'democratic' if you insist, yet it is 'democratic' only at the moment of the state-forming. And this usage of 'democratic' is quite different from that the word 'democratic' refers to a particular form of government, the western style of parliamentary government.
我想在這個翻譯上應該是有問題的
他所說的無政府可能必須要在了解這個無政府指的是一個什麼樣的”無”政府狀態
不過不穢言的 無政府的民主下是有可能產生暴政 在這個所謂的無政府民主之下還是有很多可議之處 人與人之間的關係不管在怎麼樣的情況下都是有可能產生不對等 而這個部分將被怎麼處理都是很需要思考
利維坦是論述自私自利的雜眾在自然狀態下因為怕橫死,而推舉一位主權者維護國家、社會秩序及個人安全,只要主權者一產生,雜眾自然脫離自然狀態。
所以您要用這個論點解釋台灣,那無政府狀態應該是在選舉(民主方式)前所呈現的狀態,至於是哪次選舉前,每個人各有評斷...
Post a Comment