元键政1：所有理性人本质上都是相同的，但有独特的要捍卫的价值观 - Meta Political Discussion 1：All rational people are fundamentally the same, but each has unique values to defend.

《元键政》这一系列文章是本人对于键政的由浅入深的思考，以讨论一些键政圈中常见的“元”问题（即对键政本身的探讨）。

本人并非政治专业出身，键政只是我的一个兴趣罢了。有任何知识上的疏漏，还请各位读者指正。如感到不爽或受到了侵犯，还请劳烦点击右上角大大的“关闭”按钮。

The series of articles titled "Meta Political Analysis" represents my gradual and in-depth contemplation on political analysis, aiming to discuss some common "meta" issues in the field (i.e., the exploration of political analysis itself).

I am not a political science professional; political analysis is merely an interest of mine. If there are any knowledge gaps, I welcome readers to point them out. If you feel uncomfortable or offended, please click the large "close" button in the upper right corner.

这一系列探讨的将是一些相当基础的问题，面对的群体是愿意理性讨论政治问题的人。

This series will explore some fairly basic issues and will be aimed at people who are willing to discuss political issues rationally.

---

不是所有人对政治都有兴趣，更不是所有对政治有兴趣的人都值得与之讨论。在排除掉不好好说话的嘴臭玩家，阴阳人（指说话阴阳怪气的人），和乐子人（指看乐子的人）之后，剩下的，我可以说，都是值得讨论政治的人，即理性人了。

Not everyone is interested in politics, and not everyone who is interested in politics is worth discussing with. After eliminating those who speak irresponsibly, mockingly, and those who just enjoy making political jokes. The rest, I can say, are all rational individuals who are worth discussing politics with.

所有理性人本质上都是相同的，即，遇到相同的事情时，理性的看法只有一种。所以理论上来说，每个人的政见都应该一致。在与理性人讨论政治的过程中，不会有任何冲突。

但是每个人都有要捍卫的理念。而相同的理念，在其他人看来可能一文不值。理性人的政见就建立在所捍卫的理念不受侵犯上。

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, everyone has values to defend. And the same values may be worthless in the eyes of others. Rational people's political views are based on the premise that their values are not violated.

因为理念不同，各派别之间天然就具有矛盾。比如有人认为，所有人都在自由的市场上自由地交易，所以每个人的每一笔财产都是其合法获得，用一个人辛苦所得的钱去养另一个不工作的闲人是完全不合适的，所以应该取消福利，或者只保留最基础的福利。另一派人认为，贫穷往往是因为家庭，环境，或者缺乏劳动能力（比如残疾）的原因，或者只是简单地运气不好，穷人应该得到补偿，所以应该提高福利。

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.

再举一个水平较高的兔友（爱国者）为例，比如兔主席，他的一篇文章聊《治安管理处罚法》的《第三十四条》。他说：“如果最终社会大众认为执法有问题的，执法人员及其领导就承担责任了。所以，我估计在实践中，执法人员会非常谨慎。”但是，有人最担心的事情就是社会大众监督力量缺失，执法人员可能会肆意曲解法律，扩大执法范围。这种人和兔主席明显没有共识。

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.

自由和平等本质上矛盾；魁北克独立和维护国家统一矛盾；民主与精英政治矛盾；传统男权，激进女权，和性别平等这三者两两矛盾；资产阶级政府，无产阶级专政，法西斯主义，绝对君主专制，和伊斯兰神权政治全都互相矛盾。

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's thought, they all contradict each other.

---

那么，作为理性人，应该怎么看待与其矛盾/不一致的政治理论呢？

So, as a rational person, how should one view political theories that are contradict with their own?

有相当一部分的政治理论至少是有道理的。这里以马克思主义为例：一方面，马克思主义是有非常严密的逻辑体系的，从阶级斗争，到唯物史观，论证了消除封建和资本主义，无产阶级专政的合理性，在这一点上，马克思主义十分有道理。但另一方面，马克思主义的很多理念比较极端，比如“商品的价值仅与劳动量有关”，或者“人是社会关系的总和”，它明显是一个很有乌托邦感觉的主义，很多结论是应然而不是实然。在理性自由派者眼中，马克思主义有一定道理，但不是最佳选项。

There are quite a few political theories that are at least reasonable. Let's take Marxism as an example: On the one hand, Marxism has a very rigorous logical system, from class struggle to historical materialism, it argues for the rationality of eliminating feudalism and capitalism and establishing proletarian dictatorship. In this regard, Marxism is very reasonable. On the other hand, some of Marxism's ideas are extreme, such as "the value of a commodity is only related to the amount of labor" or "People are the sum of social relationships". It is evidently a very utopian ideology, and many of its conclusions are normative rather than empirical. In the eyes of rational liberals, Marxism has some merit, but it is not the best option.

但是，还有一些十分极端的理论，比如20世纪80年代还在中国称帝的人，或者想要消灭所有男性的激进女权，以及想要杀光所有“滞纳珠”（中国人）的原教旨神友（极端逆向民族主义者&献忠人）。这些人的政治理论要么完全没有道理，经不起推敲，要么虽然有，但是又不符合实际情况。于理性自由派而言，它们太过极端了，完全没有道理。

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 rational liberals, these theories are too radical, they are beyond comprehension.

让我们更深一层地考虑这个问题：对于一个理性人来说，这个世界上的所有政见可以分成3类：可理解并应该接受的，可理解但不应该接受的，不可理解的。比如说，对于一个理性自由派者来说，“人人生而平等”是可理解并应该接受的，“资本主义应该被消灭”是可理解但不应该接受的（在认真思考过马克思主义之后），而“所有男性都应该被消灭”是不可理解的。

Let's delve deeper into this issue: For a rational person, all political views in the world can be divided into three categories: understandable and acceptable, understandable but unacceptable, and incomprehensible. For example, for a rational liberal, "all people are born equal" is understandable and acceptable, "capitalism should be eliminated" is understandable but unacceptable (after careful consideration of Marxism), and "all males should be exterminated" is incomprehensible.

如果一个政治理论包含的大多数政见属于可理解的，那么理性人应该至少认为这个政治理论是有道理的，即使他不认同它。但如果一个政治理论包含的大多数政见属于不可理解的，那么理性人应该认为这个政治理论是没有道理的。虽然每个理性人认同的政治理论不一定相同，但是我相信理性人们对于“哪些政治理论是有道理的”看法应该区别不大。

If most of the political views contained in a political theory are understandable, then a rational person should at least consider the political theory to be reasonable, even if they do not agree with it. But if most of the political views contained in a political theory are incomprehensible, then a rational person should consider the political theory to be unreasonable. Although the political theories that each rational person agrees with may not be the same, I believe that rational people's views on "which political theories are reasonable" should not differ much.

最后，呼吁一件事情：希望各位温和地与别人讨论，因为大部分持有不同政见的人既不是疯子也不是傻子，更不是拿钱去搞“大外宣”或“煽动颠覆国家政权”的人。

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

---

附录：我在这里留一个列表，列出我认为有必要捍卫的价值观，以及捍卫的理由。

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

（在讨论政治时）

友善：不解释
理性：不解释*2

（政治观）

人本主义：人（而不是国家）是万物的尺度。人是目的，而不是手段。
民主：执政合法性的基石，甚至是和平年间唯一合法的权力来源
自由：人的自然权力
对于言论自由：异议人士是社会的重要监督力量，长城是哭不倒的
进步：社会越进步，人的物质生活就会更好。大家都不想回到人均寿命30岁的年代吧。
法治：理性人治国必选
和平：和平年代，建议通过谈判而不是战争来解决分歧
包容开放：多样化是一种善良，作为异类也有正常生活的权利
此外对于移民，迟早所有国家都会变成移民国家，否则国家就会老龄化。
温和：极端主义会大大损害一部分人的利益，一类人的乌托邦可能是另一类人的地狱
关爱弱者：适度的社会保障可以保障弱者（或者倒霉蛋）的生活水平
由宗教来承担一部分的社会保障应该是可接受的

(On discussing politics)

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

(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.
Religion to play a role in social security should be acceptable.