元键政1：所有理性人都是同构的，但是我有要捍卫的价值观 - Meta Political Discussion 1: All rational beings are fundamentally the same, but I have my own values to defend.

由于本文可能稍有敏感，这里仅展示英文版。

After excluding those who speak irresponsibly, mockingly, and those who just make jokes, only the rational people who can discuss politics remain. As all rational beings are fundamentally the same, that is, there is only one rational perspective when faced with the same situation. Theoretically, their political views should coincide. There should be no conflict when discussing politics with rational individuals.

However, I have my values that I defend, which others may deem meaningless. Similarly, what I see as meaningless may be something others defend. My political views are based on the non-infringement of the values I defend.

Different factions naturally have contradictions due to differing philosophies. For instance, some believe that everyone trades in a free market, so every bit of a person's wealth is lawfully obtained. They may think it's improper to use one's hard-earned money to support another who doesn't work, thus suggesting that welfare should be abolished or at least limited to the very basics. On the other hand, others believe that poverty is often due to family circumstances, environment, lack of work ability (like disability) or simply bad luck. They argue that the poor should be compensated, hence, welfare is very meaningful and should be increased.

For another instance, take one high-level patriot - Tuzhuxi (the 'Chairman Rabbit'). In one of his articles (in Chinese) discussing Article 34 of "Regulation on Administrative Penalties for Public Security", he said, "If the public thinks that there is a problem with law enforcement, the law enforcers and their leaders should bear the responsibility. Thus, I reckon law enforcers would be very cautious in practice." However, some people are most concerned about the lack of public oversight and the potential for law enforcers to arbitrarily interpret the law and expand their jurisdiction. There's evidently no consensus between this kind of person and Tuzhuxi.

Freedom and equality fundamentally contradict each other, as do Quebec's independence and preservation of national unity, democracy and elitism, traditional male chauvinism, radical feminism, and gender equality. Capitalist government, proletarian dictatorship, fascism, absolute monarchy, Islamic theocracy, and Xi Jinping's thought, they all contradict each other.

Then, just because I hold contradictory views compared to everyone else, does it mean that different political factions from mine are irrational?

This question is complex, but I could indicate from my perspective: some do, and some don't. Let's take Marxism as an example:

On one hand, Marxism has a very rigorous logical system, which elaborates on the reasonability of abolishing feudalism and capitalism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat, based on class struggle and historical materialism; on this front, Marxism is quite reasonable. Large portions of Marxist doctrines, such as “The value of a commodity is solely related to the amount of labor", and "People are the sum of social relationships", however, are extreme and utopian, with conclusions that are normative rather than factual. As a rational individual, I acknowledge that Marxism has some merit, but as a liberal, I don't see Marxism as the optimal choice, I understand it, but do not endorse it.

Then there are the radical theories, such as the self-proclaimed emperors in China during the 1980s, radical feminists advocating the extermination of all males, and the reversed ultraconservative nationalists intent on eradicating all Chinese. The political theories of these groups are either baseless and stand no scrutiny, or have some merit but are out of touch with reality. For me, these theories are too radical, they are beyond my comprehension.

Finally, here's a plea: I hope everyone can engage in discussions with others in a moderate manner. Most people with differing opinions are not irrational, naive, nor are they being paid to propagate foreign propaganda or incite subversion of the state power. 

Btw, from an outcomes perspective, it was Marxism that revolutionized the Chinese regime.

next

元键政2：键政的意义何在？ - Meta Political Discussion 2: What is the significance of discussing politics?

---

Appendix: I make a list of the values that I defended in forming my political views, along with the reasons for defending them. Friendly critiques are welcome.

(On discussing politics)

• Kindness: No explanation.
• Rationality: No explanation*2.

(My political views)

• Humanism: The human being, not the country, is the measure of all things. Human beings should be treated as an end in themselves and not as a means to something else.
• Democracy: The cornerstone of governing legitimacy, even the only legitimate source of power in peacetime.
• Freedom: A natural human right.
• Freedom of speech: Dissidents are important watchdogs in society. The Great Wall is not going to crumble with mere words.
• Progress: The more progressive the society, the better the material lives of the people. I believe nobody wants to go back to the time when life expectancy was 30.
• Nomocracy: A must-option for rational governance.
• Peace: In times of peace, negotiation rather than war is advised to resolve differences.
• Open and Inclusive: Diversity is kindness. Even an outsider deserves to live normally.
• Regarding immigration, every country will inevitably become an immigrant-inhabited country; otherwise, it is due to age.
• Moderation: Extremism tremendously harms peoples' interests. One's utopia may be another's hell.
• Care for the weak: Moderate social security ensures a decent living standard for the underprivileged or the unlucky.
• I accept religion playing a role in social security.

There are other values which commonly talked about, but I don't think they are necessary:

• Nationalism/Patriotism/Collectivism: It's hard for me to feel close to a specific group of people simply based on blood, culture, country, birthplace, etc. 
• Obviously, I feel closer to those who share my hobbies or chat with me every day. 
• I don't want to subscribe to a collectivity that I cannot willingly exit.
• Optimism: Is it rational?
• Romanticism: Same as above
• Traditional Culture: It contains too much dross, better to contact after being informed of modern ideas.
• Marxism: I suggest resolving workers' issues through unions and labor parties, not through communist parties and workers' revolutions.
• It seems extreme
• And has no successful precedent
• China's National Rejuvenation: If it leads to war, I would even oppose it. 
• Won't it be an invasion by the primitive? Better wait till China democratizes and nomocratizes.