劳动节的劳动感言

以下是引用仗义执言在2006-5-7 13:43:00的发言：

"I believe that a rule subject to the decision of the majority is more appropriate" you are right there.

the reasonable rules are made by the rule of democratic decision-making.

the reasonable rules are just rules which do not depend on the truth but depend on the loaves and fishes of majority.

the reasonable rules cannot look to be the truth. so i think "becoming the tyranny of majority" is bullshit. looking it in this way, "tyranny of majority" is democracy itself and "tyranny of minority" is the tyranny itself.

the mass of the people will rise to taking an independent part

Ms., I think you'd better clarify the distinction between rule-making and decision-making.

When a ruler tells his subject:"You'll give 20% percent of your income, no matter how much you earn in the future", he is making a rule. When he steps into someone's house randomly and rob his assets, he is making decisions.

Such distinction can also be applied to democratic background. Some people may gather together and decide to play a game (maybe a lottery). The rules can be made by democratic procedure, i.e., a rule can't be implied unless it's approved by the majority. There'll be winner and losers. If the losers are disapponited but respect the result, then they act in a democratic rule-making system.

However, the losers could claim that they don't give a damn about the rules, and vote to decide whether the honor and the award of the winner should be deprived. Since the losers are the majority, the winner is definitely in trouble. This is democratic decision-making.

以下是引用万岁大中华在2006-5-7 11:09:00的发言：

伙计，这种是非不明，黑白不分的话还有道理，岂不是“强权即是公理？”

枉你还称自己怎么怎么样，嘿、嘿、嘿。。。哈、哈、哈。。。

可悲、可耻、可羞。。。

象这样的读书人，还是少点好。

象你这种人，不仅学西经的觉得你没水平，学马经的也同样觉得你不咋样。

如果说因为学西经的是因为理解的东西和你有抵触的话，

为什么马经派的人对你也不屑一顾呢。

说你对西经一窍不通是因为你根本不知道新古典经济学讲的是什么，还说博弈论是为资产阶级服务的。

还有就凭你现在的知识结构，创新经济学别做梦了，西经你学的不咋样，马经你同样学的不咋样，连资本论都没读过，还号称什么马克思主义者，简直是虚伪至及。还有，你认为邓小平是马克思主义经济学家，马克思如果在坟墓里面听到了，说不定会爬出来找你算帐。本来不打算理会你的帖子的，谁知道你无知的回复我的帖子，我的思想境界是没有你那么崇高，我也没有为全人类的解放，为劳苦大众谋利益的思想，因为在我看来，这并不是靠某些经济思想所能改变的，人的贫穷可能有客观原因，可能存在着出身不同，在这些人当中有些人如果能够接受好的教育，又具有天赋，相信会成为可造之才。但是有些人呢，穷人就一定值得同情吗？倒也未必，有些穷人有着严重的路径依赖的情况，他们的贫穷是因为自身的“路径依赖”，而且有的时候有着“随遇而安”的思想，甚至想尽办法搭便车，这种情况又如何。富人当中有值得尊敬的，也有值得鄙视的。穷人也是如此，有些穷人一直没有放弃努力，可另外一部分又如何呢？我最起码比你好的一点就是我不会象你那样夸夸其谈。而且有时在论坛上回答一些关于什么经济学书籍怎么学的时候，尤其是对于一些新手，不会起着误导作用，毕竟这部分学生对于西马之争没有什么兴趣。人家只想对经济学有着进一步的了解。在这时还是不要加上什么额外的感情色彩为好。至于象我这样的读书人是不是越少越好，与你无关。我也不想再附加一句对你的评价了。最后，请你以后不要跟我的帖子，说实话，你的帖子我实在是看都不想看。

以下是引用仗义执言在2006-5-7 16:24:00的发言：

First of all, Such distinction is not the core problem here.

Second of all, you can’t point out that the losers are the majority as the gamble is entirely random.

3^rd, if the loser as the the majority can make decision to deprive the winner, the gamble will not take effect at the beginning,since not to have this decision-making should be included in the rule-making at the beginning. Without this core rule, nothing would come of the gamble "rule" , so the gamble will not happen forever.

1st, I can't see why it's not the core problem, since we agree that democracy should be the leading principle. Anyway, we can still discuss it even it's not the core problem.

2nd, random gamble can also produce majority, isn't it? Lottery is a purely random game, yet it's quite esay to distinguish the losers from the winners, and the losers will be the majority. Even the majority of people are not the absolute losers, the may see themselves as relative losers. Ina sports game, no one is absolutely a loser except the bottom one, but the runner-up can also see herself as a loser, compared with the champion, and he can get benefits by depriving the champion with the majority.

3rd, the majority of people may agree not to deprive the winner before the game started, but since inconsistency is unavoidable human weakness, who can promise that the majority wil also respect the rules as long as they find out that the result is bad for them? Suppose that people agree that the winner should not be deprived, but later the majority changed their mind (because they can benefit from such deprivation), should they be condemned? I think so. How do you think?

以下是引用仗义执言在2006-5-7 16:57:00的发言：

then there is no rule in this damned world! and there is no word of "rule" as well.so it's pointless to discuss it any more!

Come on, don't be so cynic. I don't mean to restrict everyone's every action by a priori rule, but sometimes we do need rules. We should not make rules to limit people's thought, but we do need rules to exclude inappropriate offences, don't we? I believe people's reason could override their loaves and fishes.

大中华，你是来交流的还是来强占话语权的。说的乱七八糟。少搞道德批判，多看点书。

以下是引用bajjio在2006-5-7 15:54:00的发言：

象你这种人，不仅学西经的觉得你没水平，学马经的也同样觉得你不咋样。

如果说因为学西经的是因为理解的东西和你有抵触的话，

为什么马经派的人对你也不屑一顾呢。

说你对西经一窍不通是因为你根本不知道新古典经济学讲的是什么，还说博弈论是为资产阶级服务的。

还有就凭你现在的知识结构，创新经济学别做梦了，西经你学的不咋样，马经你同样学的不咋样，连资本论都没读过，还号称什么马克思主义者，简直是虚伪至及。还有，你认为邓小平是马克思主义经济学家，马克思如果在坟墓里面听到了，说不定会爬出来找你算帐。本来不打算理会你的帖子的，谁知道你无知的回复我的帖子，我的思想境界是没有你那么崇高，我也没有为全人类的解放，为劳苦大众谋利益的思想，因为在我看来，这并不是靠某些经济思想所能改变的，人的贫穷可能有客观原因，可能存在着出身不同，在这些人当中有些人如果能够接受好的教育，又具有天赋，相信会成为可造之才。但是有些人呢，穷人就一定值得同情吗？倒也未必，有些穷人有着严重的路径依赖的情况，他们的贫穷是因为自身的“路径依赖”，而且有的时候有着“随遇而安”的思想，甚至想尽办法搭便车，这种情况又如何。富人当中有值得尊敬的，也有值得鄙视的。穷人也是如此，有些穷人一直没有放弃努力，可另外一部分又如何呢？我最起码比你好的一点就是我不会象你那样夸夸其谈。而且有时在论坛上回答一些关于什么经济学书籍怎么学的时候，尤其是对于一些新手，不会起着误导作用，毕竟这部分学生对于西马之争没有什么兴趣。人家只想对经济学有着进一步的了解。在这时还是不要加上什么额外的感情色彩为好。至于象我这样的读书人是不是越少越好，与你无关。我也不想再附加一句对你的评价了。最后，请你以后不要跟我的帖子，说实话，你的帖子我实在是看都不想看。

本来不想跟你的贴子了。

不过，你污蔑我，我不能接受。你说我说过，“博弈论是为资产阶级服务的。”

你必须指出来，我在论坛什么地方说过这句话？无中生有的事情最好不要做。这不是马克思

主义学者应当做的事。

如果我没有说过，你就必须向我道歉！！！，原文是什么，在哪里，没有根据，不要乱说。

以下是引用万岁大中华在2006-5-8 9:41:00的发言：

本来不想跟你的贴子了。

不过，你污蔑我，我不能接受。你说我说过，“博弈论是为资产阶级服务的。”

你必须指出来，我在论坛什么地方说过这句话？无中生有的事情最好不要做。这不是马克思

主义学者应当做的事。

如果我没有说过，你就必须向我道歉！！！，原文是什么，在哪里，没有根据，不要乱说。

https://bbs.pinggu.org/thread-55192-1-1.html

[求助]我们为什么要学习博弈论？

在学习博弈论的过程中，发现其中的大部分是为了寡头服务的理论，那么我们为什么学习博弈论呢？总不成是为了不效率的寡头服务吧。

请联系实际说明一下儿，为什么要学习博弈论？

这个总是你说的吧，说过的话就要承认。寡头怎么也是属于垄断资产阶级吧。总不会是无产阶级吧，另外，我可不是马克思主义者，不要随便把别人归类。

还有，我说过强权即公理了吗？我只是区分了起点公平和结果公平的概念，人的自身发展虽然外界可以给予一点帮助，但是关键还是要靠自身的努力，人的结果不公平并不一定是因为起点不平等所造成的。公平，公正，平等，正义的区别国内很多人都分不清的。请问我哪里说强权即公理了呢？斯大林，毛泽东等人以前的举动才是强权即公理。呵呵，说别人诬赖自己，为什么自己诬赖别人就看不到了，对别人一套，对自己一套。请问现在还需要道歉吗？最后一次回你的贴，请不要回复。