CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 民主,最危险的宗教 — 9. 第九章:民主和普世价值

    0
    109

    december 21, 2022

    Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion
    民主,最危险的宗教

    9. Chapter 9 – Democracy and Universal Values
    9. 第九章:民主和普世价值

    By Larry Romanoff
    拉里•罗曼诺夫

    翻译: 珍珠

     CHINESE

    My Fellow Americans:

    美国同胞们:


    The United States of America has many laws, but why does it have them? As an example, why does your country have laws against insider trading in securities? The answer should be obvious: at some time in the past, some Americans tried to unfairly enrich themselves by gaming the system. Your government responded by enacting legislation and regulations that might prevent or at least punish those who committed these acts in the future. But then why doesn’t everybody have these same laws? It isn’t because they approve of insider trading; it’s because they have (so far) had no need for such laws. Some countries have no stock exchanges, so the point is moot. Some countries have stock trading in its infancy and insider trading has not been a problem. Maybe in some countries the people are more honest than Americans or, more likely, have found other preferred ways to cheat the system. In any case, not everyone has what you have. The reason your country has these laws is because you needed them. Your nation developed in a manner that exposed a weakness which required preventive legislation.

    美国有很多法律,但为什么会有这些法律?例如,为什么你的国家有反对证券内幕交易的法律?答案应该是显而易见的:在过去某个时候,一些美国人试图通过游戏系统不公平地致富。你的政府通过制定法律法规来应对,这些法律法规可能会阻止或至少惩罚那些在未来犯下这些行为的人。但为什么不是每个人都有同样的法律?这不是因为他们赞成内幕交易;而是因为他们(到目前为止)不需要这样的法律。一些国家没有证券交易所,所以这一点没有意义。一些国家的股票交易处于起步阶段,内幕交易不是一个问题。也许在一些国家,人们比美国人更诚实,或者更有可能已经找到了其他欺骗系统的首选方法。无论如何,不是每个人都有你拥有的东西。你的国家有这些法律的原因是因为你需要它们。你的国家以一种暴露弱点的方式发展,需要预防性立法。

    But most importantly, your securities legislation was not enacted because God told you to do it. That excuse is reserved for George Bush invading Iraq to find WMDs. The laws are there because of your country’s history – the way your nation developed. It shouldn’t be necessary to point out to you that another nation that developed in a different way might well have different laws. The point of all this, is that there ain’t no “democracy” here. There ain’t no religion here, no freedoms, no human rights, no universal values, here. What there is here, is “let’s stop some Americans from cheating“. And no more than that. Again, you should be able to extrapolate from this one example, and maybe begin to more clearly see your country the way it is.

    但最重要的是,你们的证券立法没有颁布,因为上帝告诉你们要这样做。这个借口是为乔治·布什入侵伊拉克寻找大规模杀伤性武器而保留的。法律之所以存在,是因为你们国家的历史——你们国家的发展方式。没有必要向你指出,另一个以不同方式发展的国家可能有不同的法律。所有这一切的意义在于,这里没有“民主”。这里没有宗教,没有自由,没有人权,没有普世价值。这里有的只是“让我们阻止一些美国人作弊”。仅此而已。再一次,你应该能够从这个例子中推断出来,也许开始更清楚地看到你们国家的现状。

    Why did your former governments insist on a separation of church and state? And why didn’t every nation enact those laws? Why did your government – and ONLY your government – adopt the principle of separation of powers? Why did it proclaim the (largely illusory) independence of the judiciary? The reason should be obvious to you. There was a felt need for such legislation because of the way your nation developed. Your laws, policies, procedures, attitudes, developed from your history. You are a product of your environment, or maybe your environment is the product of you. You have enacted all these laws, adopted all these attitudes, because they were necessary – for you. Since each other nation did what was necessary for them, not everything is the same – nor should it be.

    为什么你们以前的政府坚持政教分离?为什么不是每个国家都制定这些法律?为什么你们的政府——只有你们的政府——采取了分权原则?为什么它宣布司法独立(很大程度上是虚幻的)?原因应该是显而易见的。由于你们国家的发展方式,人们感到有必要制定这样的立法。你们的法律、政策、程序、态度都是从你们的历史中发展而来的。你们是环境的产物,或者也许你们的环境是你们的产物。你们制定了所有这些法律,采取了所有这些态度,因为它们是必要的——对你们来说。既然其他国家做了必要的事情,那么一切都不尽相同——也不应该如此。

    Why do people in the UK drive their cars on the left side of the road, when you drive on the right? And who cares? They developed differently than you, and they do things differently. Are you going to tell us that driving on the right side of the road is a “universal value that reflects the true yearnings of all mankind“? Do you want to add this to your long and foolish list of the 1,001 things included in “democracy, freedom and human rights“? Other countries may not need those same laws, for any number of reasons. So, in what mental state are you operating when you demand that all other nations adopt these same values – just because YOU have them? Who are you, anyway?

    为什么英国人把车开在路的左边,而你们开在右边?谁在乎呢?他们发展得和你们不一样,他们做事的方式也不一样。你要告诉我们,把车开在路的右边是“反映全人类真实渴望的普遍价值观”吗?你想把它加到你那漫长而愚蠢的“民主、自由和人权”中的1001件事的清单上吗?其他国家可能出于各种原因不需要同样的法律。所以,当你要求所有其他国家采用这些相同的价值观时,你处于什么精神状态——仅仅因为你拥有它们?不管怎样,你是谁?

    From this, you should be able to extrapolate a bit further and make some sense of who you are and what is your place in the world. Your country, the US, for whatever reason, has developed into a strongly individualistic society where the apparent focus is on ME – My freedoms, My rights, My everything. Most other nations are pluralistic, unlike you, and those that do resemble you are much more moderate in their expression. All these me-focused attitudes are again the result of your nation’s development. They are not “universal” in any sense. They are not “human rights“; they are not anything. And they sure as hell do not represent the “true yearnings of all mankind“. They are just you. They represent what YOU are, because of where you have been. And no more than that.

    由此,你应该能够进一步推断出你是谁,你在世界上的位置是什么。你的国家,美国,无论出于什么原因,已经发展成为一个强烈的个人主义社会,表面上关注的是——我的自由、我的权利、我的一切。与其他国家不同,大多数国家都是多元化的,而那些与你相似的国家在表达上要温和得多。所有这些以我为中心的态度都是你国家发展的结果。它们在任何意义上都不是“普遍的”。它们不是“人权”;它们什么都不是。它们当然不代表“全人类的真正渴望”。它们只是你。它们代表了你是什么,因为你已经到了哪里。仅此而已。

    It might interest you to know that your “exceptional” US is the most litigious nation in the world – by orders of magnitude. The US had, at last count, one lawyer for every 265 people. China has one lawyer for every 66,000 people. Why do you suppose that is? Because China’s legal system is undeveloped? Not so. The simple truth is that this flows from your primitive individualism and your moralistic Christian heritage. Asian morality negotiates to find a compromise that everyone can live with. Americans are true believers in “the law of the jungle“, where we fight and have a clear winner and a clear loser. You thrive on conflict, often seeking it out if it doesn’t exist. Americans spend more money on lawyers than on purchasing new cars, but to you, your excessive litigiousness is normal, natural, and necessary. To the remaining 96% of the world, you’re just crazy.

    你可能会想知道,你的“特殊”美国是世界上最具法律诉讼的国家——按数量级计算。美国最后统计,每265人有一名律师。中国每66,000人有一名律师。你为什么这么认为?因为中国的法律制度不发达吗?不是这样的。简单的事实是,这是由于你的原始个人主义和道德主义的基督教遗产。亚洲道德协商以找到每个人都能接受的妥协。美国人真正相信“丛林法则”,在那里我们战斗,有明确的赢家和输家。你靠冲突发展,如果冲突不存在,你经常寻求冲突。美国人花在律师身上的钱比买新车多,但对你来说,你的过度诉讼是正常的、自然的和必要的。对于世界上剩下的96%,你只是疯了。

    Your “right to sue” is not a universal value and God-given freedom and human right. It’s none of those things. It’s just you – aggressive, belligerent, and always looking for a fight. No other nations share your natural belligerence, nor are they so desperate to rationalise their own failings as to resort to the delusional and simple-minded pretense of transfiguring a vice into a virtue. Once again, this ain’t no “democracy” here, no “universal values“, no religion, no “human rights and freedoms“. This is just YOU, preferring to fight rather than talk. This is what you chose, because of what you are. Keep it, if you’re happy with it, but don’t try to impose it on the rest of the world, because they don’t want it.

    你的“起诉权”不是普世价值,也不是上帝赋予的自由和人权。它不是这些东西。它只是——咄咄逼人、好战,总是寻找战斗。没有其他国家像你一样天生好战,也没有其他国家如此绝望地为自己的失败找借口,以至于不惜妄想和愚蠢地假装将恶行转化为美德。再一次,这里没有“民主”,没有“普世价值”,没有宗教,没有“人权和自由”。这只是你,宁愿战斗而不是谈话。这是你选择的,因为你的本性。如果你喜欢它,就保留它,但不要试图把它强加给世界其他国家,因为他们不想要它。

    In conjunction with the strong individualism, your nation has developed what some would term an excessively strong capitalist culture – to the extent that even giving your people a universal health care system would mean “the end of freedom in America”, at least according to Ronald Reagan. It should be no surprise that there is no other country in the world that agrees with you. You are all alone on this one. But again, this fierce and unrestrained capitalism developed in your nation alone, because of you and your history, and because of who and what you are. It did not develop anywhere else on the planet. And like most everything else you believe, this fierce capitalism of yours is not a “universal value“, and in truth, nobody but you values it. It is not religion; it is not human rights or freedoms; it is not “democracy“. It is just you. And you are in no position to tell other nations they’re wrong, if they don’t want your “values“.

    与强烈的个人主义相结合,你的国家已经发展出了一种被一些人称为过于强烈的资本主义文化——以至于即使给你的人民一个全民医疗保健系统也意味着“美国自由的终结”,至少根据罗纳德·里根的说法。难怪世界上没有其他国家同意你的观点。你在这方面是孤立的。但再一次,这种激烈而放纵的资本主义只在你国家发展,因为你和你的历史,也因为你是谁。它没有在地球上的任何其他地方发展。和你相信的其他大多数东西一样,你的这种激烈的资本主义不是“普遍价值”,事实上,除了你没有人重视它。这不是宗教;不是人权或自由;不是“民主”。它就是你自己。如果你不想接受你的价值观,你没有资格告诉其他国家他们错了。

    This is the one you will like least. Do you believe you have your multi-party “democracy” because an Angel descended from Heaven with some golden tablets and showed you “The Way of The Universe“? Was that the same Angel who introduced your country to black slavery? The same one who encouraged you to exterminate 98% of the aboriginal natives in your country? The same Angel who encouraged you to go to Vietnam, kill 5 million people, and go home? Your form of government developed in the same way as all your other beliefs, attitudes, values and laws. It is one more product of the environment; if that past environment had been different, your government system would undoubtedly reflect that. If you really are one of the 25%, you know that a multi-party electoral system is simply one form of participatory government, and nothing very special. It sure as hell is not a religion, not even if you live in Jesusland.

    这是你最不喜欢的。你相信你的多党“民主”是因为一个天使从天堂降临,带着一些金片,向你展示了“宇宙之路”吗?是那个把黑奴介绍到你们国家的天使吗?是那个鼓励你消灭你们国家98%的土著居民的天使吗?是那个鼓励你去越南,杀死500万人,然后回家的天使吗?你的政府形式和你所有的其他信仰、态度、价值观和法律一样发展。它是环境的另一个产物;如果过去的环境不同,你的政府体系无疑会反映出来。如果你真的是25%中的一员,你知道多党选举制度只是参与式政府的一种形式,并没有什么特别之处。它肯定是地狱,即使你住在耶稣之地。

    Again, use your head. Your vaunted “democracy” is no more a “universal value” than were your black and white slaves. Your people believed so firmly that slavery was a “God-given human right” that your country maintained it for centuries. Today that idea is dead, but it sure wasn’t dead 150 years ago, and back then your grandfather was screaming about the fundamental human right to own slaves, just as today you mindlessly parrot the same nonsense about “democracy“. He was crazy then, and you’re crazy now. Your form of government evolved from the accidents of who you are and how you developed. Most of the world is different, and most of the world has values different from yours. Some would say that’s a good thing.

    再一次,用你的头脑。你吹嘘的“民主”和你的黑人和白人奴隶一样,不再是“普世价值”。你的人民坚信奴隶制是“上帝赋予的人权”,你的国家维持了几个世纪。今天,这个想法已经死了,但它在150年前肯定没有死,当时你的祖父正在大声疾呼拥有奴隶的基本人权,就像今天你无意识地模仿关于“民主”的废话一样。他当时疯了,你现在疯了。你的政府形式是从你是谁以及你如何发展的意外中演变而来的。世界大部分地区都不同,世界上大部分地区的价值观都与你不同。有些人会说这是一件好事。

    Then we have Freedoms! and Human Rights! What Americans choose to define as human rights (or civil rights) is unique in the world. We sometimes see supermarkets where almost everything appears to be “On Sale“, analogous to the all-encompassing American definition of “democracy” – which one American acquaintance insisted included the “right to dog food” for her pets. The American definition of this term is becoming increasingly all-inclusive, containing every manner of “right” – of which Americans appear to have zillions – including human rights, civil rights, media rights, legal rights, assembly rights. It really just doesn’t end, and people in many countries just don’t stop laughing.

    然后我们有了自由!和人权!美国人选择定义为人权(或公民权利)的东西在世界上是独一无二的。我们有时看到超市里几乎所有东西都“打折”,类似于美国人对“民主”的全面定义——一位美国熟人坚持认为民主包括她宠物的“吃狗粮的权利”。美国人对这个词的定义越来越全面,包含了各种各样的“权利”——美国人似乎有数不清的权利——包括人权、公民权利、媒体权利、合法权利、集会权利。它真的没有结束,许多国家的人民只是不停地笑。

    This individualism has conditioned most Americans to view all these so-called “rights” as universal values. But few other nations have this characteristic, and none have it anywhere near as strongly. A large majority of the world’s peoples are socially pluralistic and are much less interested than Americans in these so-called rights. Pluralistic societies value stability more than many of the small rights and freedoms that Americans hold so religiously. These people are willing to tolerate many kinds of restrictions in exchange for something they value more. And you can’t tell them they’re wrong.

    这种个人主义让大多数美国人将所有这些所谓的权利视为普遍价值。但很少有其他国家具有这种特征,而且没有一个国家拥有这种特征。世界上大多数民族都是社会多元化的,他们对这些所谓的权利的兴趣远不如美国人。多元化社会重视稳定,而不是美国人如此虔诚地持有的许多小权利和自由。这些人愿意容忍许多种限制,以换取他们更重视的东西。你不能告诉他们他们错了。

    Americans appear unable to accept this, having foolishly elevated all these values to a theological status. During Google’s recent dispute with the Chinese government, the Western media were full of claims that Google was a “human right“. To people in most nations, that’s just childish nonsense. Americans cannot understand that what they have, is merely a reflection of what they are and where they have been. And that other nations developed differently and hold different values. We see this in everything from Google to Twitter to IP and patent claims, to business practices to social conventions. With IP and patent issues, for example, pluralistic societies are much more “open-source” than is the US. It’s a bit like hearing a funny story and passing it on without even thinking of “crediting the original source”.

    美国人似乎无法接受这一点,愚蠢地将所有这些价值观提升到神学地位。在谷歌最近与中国政府的争端中,西方媒体充斥着声称谷歌是“人权”的说法。对于大多数国家的人来说,这只是幼稚的胡说八道。美国人无法理解他们所拥有的,仅仅是他们是谁以及他们去过哪里的反映。而其他国家的发展方式不同,价值观也不同。从谷歌到推特到知识产权和专利主张,再到商业惯例和社会习俗,我们都可以看到这一点。例如,在知识产权和专利问题上,多元化社会比美国更加“开源”。这有点像听了一个有趣的故事,却甚至没有想到“归功于原创”。

    People in pluralistic societies are much less concerned with ownership of ideas, concepts, designs. Much is generally considered to be in the public domain. And there is no basis – “democratic” or otherwise – on which you can tell these people they are wrong. But Americans, with their moralistic Christianity and fierce individualism, cannot understand this, and constantly demand that the entire world adopt American attitudes and values – on the simple-minded thesis that these are “universal”. But they are not universal, not in any sense. They are American constructs or, at least, Western ones. Most of the world does not think that way and resents the push to be remade in the American image. The world does not like to have foreign American values shoved down their throats.

    多元化社会中的人们更少关注思想、概念和设计的所有权。通常认为很多东西都属于公共领域。而且没有基础——“民主”或其他——可以告诉这些人他们错了。但是美国人,他们的道德基督教和强烈的个人主义,无法理解这一点,并不断要求整个世界采用美国的态度和价值观——基于这些是“普遍的”这一简单的论点。但它们不是普遍的,在任何意义上都不是。它们是美国人的构想,或者至少是西方的构想。世界上大多数国家不这么认为,并且对按照美国形象重塑的推动表示不满。世界不喜欢把美国的外国价值观强加于他们。

    So, my American friend, who do you think you are, to demand that the entire world adopt your values, systems, standards, beliefs? And you do indeed demand this, often using the power of your military to achieve it. In truth, very little of what you hold to be so dear and so true, is “universal” in any sense of the meaning of that word. You have what you want, so be happy with it. But you are only 4% of the world’s population. What do you think about, that you should blindly demand that the other 96% of the world’s people adopt what you have? They don’t want what you have. They don’t want your “universal” values – or your “democracy” because neither your values nor your system of government are in any way universal. Other nations don’t want to be like you; they want to be like them.

    所以,我的美国朋友,你认为你是谁,要求全世界采用你的价值观、制度、标准、信仰?你确实要求这样做,经常使用你的军事力量来实现它。事实上,你所珍视和真实的东西很少是“普遍的”在任何意义上的“普遍”。你拥有你想要的东西,所以应该感到高兴。但你只占世界人口的4%。你怎么想,你应该盲目地要求世界其他96%的人采用你的东西?他们不想要你所拥有的东西。他们不想要你的普遍价值观 – 你的民主,因为你的价值观和政府制度在任何方面都不是普遍的。其他国家不想像你一样;他们想成为他们。

    *

    Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

    罗曼诺夫先生的作品已被翻译成32种语言,他的文章发表在30多个国家的150多个外语新闻和政治网站以及100多个英语平台上。拉里·罗曼诺夫是一名退休的管理顾问和商人。他曾在国际咨询公司担任高级管理职位,并拥有国际进出口业务。他曾是上海复旦大学的客座教授,为高级EMBA课程提供国际事务案例研究。罗曼诺夫先生住在上海,目前正在写一系列十本书,通常与中国和西方有关。他是辛西娅·麦金尼的新文集《当中国打喷嚏》的撰稿人之一。(第2章——与恶魔打交道)。

    His full archive can be seen at

    他的完整文章库可以在以下看到:

    https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

     

    He can be contacted at:

    他的联系方式:

    2186604556@qq.com

    *

    This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

    本文可能包含受版权保护的材料,其使用未经版权所有者特别授权。此内容根据合理使用原则提供,仅用于教育和信息目的。此内容没有商业用途。

    Copyright © Larry RomanoffBlue Moon of ShanghaiMoon of Shanghai, 2024

    版权所有 © 拉里·罗曼诺夫、上海蓝月亮、上海月亮,2024