| 殖官主义与Gentleman治理:英联邦幸福指数的制度逻辑 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 送交者: 孞烎Archer 2025年09月23日14:44:57 于 [天下论坛] 发送悄悄话 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
殖官主义与Gentleman治理:英联邦幸福指数的制度逻辑Colonial Officialism vs. Gentleman Governance: The Institutional Logic of Commonwealth Happiness 钱宏(Archer Hong Qian) 2025年9月23日 · 爱丁堡-因弗尼斯 摘要(Abstract) 本文比较了“殖官主义”与“Gentleman治理”两种制度逻辑,揭示了英联邦国家幸福指数长期领先的根源。殖官主义以权力攫取为核心,依赖贪官酷吏、沉重税负与不公司法,导致人民困苦与制度性腐败。而英国在亚当·斯密思想与议会制度影响下,将殖民治理逐步转化为Gentleman模式:依靠普通法、轻税制与社区自治,形成“家庭—社区—政府”三级秩序。这种制度遗产不仅击碎了传统的殖官模式,还建立了生产回归生活、生活呈现生态、生态激励生命的良性循环,体现了**共生经济学(Symbionomics)**所强调的“经济、社会与生态系统的自组织与互生”原则。 This article compares two institutional logics—Colonial Officialism and Gentleman Governance—to explain why Commonwealth nations consistently rank high in happiness indices. Colonial Officialism, centered on power extraction, relied on corrupt officials, heavy taxation, and unjust judiciary, producing systemic corruption and social suffering. In contrast, under the influence of Adam Smith’s ideas and parliamentary institutions, Britain gradually transformed its colonial governance into a Gentleman model: based on common law, light taxation, and community self-rule, forming a three-tier order of Family–Community–Government. This legacy disrupted traditional extraction systems and fostered a virtuous cycle of production returning to life, life revealing ecology, and ecology empowering vitality, reflecting Symbionomics principles of self-organizing, mutually supportive economic, social, and ecological systems. 关键词(Keywords)殖官主义;Gentleman治理;英联邦;幸福指数;制度比较;共生经济学 Colonial Officialism; Gentleman Governance; Commonwealth; Happiness Index; Institutional Comparison; Symbionomics 小引 / Preface“丧谁的权、辱谁的国?百年屈辱不是人民的屈辱,而是统治者的屈辱。人民没什么好屈辱的,问问香港人,有几个感到屈辱?有几个不想要英国的保护并继续‘屈辱’下去?” ——丘露薇(凤凰卫视记者, 2008年采访) “Whose power was lost, whose nation was humiliated? The so-called ‘century of humiliation’ was not the humiliation of the people, but of the rulers. The people had little to feel humiliated about. Ask the Hong Kong people—how many felt humiliated? How many did not want the protection of Britain and to continue this so-called ‘humiliation’?” — Qiu Luwei, Phoenix TV journalist, 2008 interview 这一引述揭示了制度逻辑的深层含义:国家的制度设计,比抽象民族荣辱更直接影响人民幸福感与生活质量。 一、殖官主义的逻辑:权力即攫取I. The Logic of Colonial Officialism: Power as Extraction 殖官主义的核心特征在于权力的攫取性。统治者通过征税、特许垄断和官僚系统的高度集中,将经济活动转化为权力机器的供养。具体表现包括:
从共生经济学(Symbionomics)角度看,殖官主义破坏了经济—社会—生态三层自组织系统:生产与生活脱节,生活无法形成健康生态,生态失去活力,社会陷入制度性腐败的恶性循环。 二、英国的转折:从攫取到Gentleman治理II. Britain’s Turn: From Predation to Gentleman Governance 英国在亚当·斯密思想、普通法与议会制度影响下,将殖民治理逐步转向Gentleman治理模式,其核心在于权力服务于社会。
这一转变不仅打破了殖官主义的权力攫取模式,还形成了共生经济学的实践样本:经济活动回归生活,生活激励生态,生态反哺社会与经济。 三、殖官 vs Gentleman:两种殖民的制度效果III. Colonial Officialism vs. Gentleman Governance: Institutional Outcomes
Gentleman治理显著提升了社会自组织能力,激发了社区与经济生态系统的协同运作,从而解释英联邦国家幸福指数长期领先的现象。 四、生产—生活—生态的再出发IV. From Production to Life to Ecology Gentleman治理的核心价值在于将经济生产与生活、生态系统紧密结合,形成可持续的良性循环,具体体现如下:
这一循环符合**共生经济学(Symbionomics)**的核心理念:经济、社会与生态系统相互依赖、互为生长动力,并通过制度设计形成自组织与自我强化机制。 通过Gentleman治理模式,英联邦国家实现了:
结语 / Conclusion丘露薇的评论揭示了一个反讽:所谓“百年国耻”,更多是统治者的耻辱,而非人民的真实感受。 The remark by Qiu Luwei reveals a paradox: the so-called “Century of Humiliation” was more the humiliation of the rulers than of the people. 人民真正需要的不是抽象的民族尊严,而是安全、公正与自由的日常生活,同时形成经济—社会—生态系统的良性互生。 What the people truly need is not abstract “national dignity,” but security, justice, and freedom in everyday life, together with a mutually reinforcing cycle of economic, social, and ecological systems—a core insight of Symbionomics. Gentleman治理模式展示了制度设计如何通过自组织和互生机制提升人民幸福指数,为全球制度比较提供了范例。 参考文献(References, APA style)
|
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
| 实用资讯 | |
|
|
| 一周点击热帖 | 更多>> |
| 一周回复热帖 |
| 历史上的今天:回复热帖 |
| 2024: | 黎巴嫩传呼机爆炸,中国厂商接到大量通 | |
| 2024: | 扒一扒中国极权统治的古坟 | |
| 2023: | 菜刀磨利了,看啥都觉得像一块蛋白质。 | |
| 2023: | 中秋节杀鞑子?习近平与太子党已经到摊 | |
| 2022: | 中共政权的国家元首的统治危机 | |
| 2022: | 你不反腐我们反,团结死磕的老访民一起 | |
| 2021: | 老川雄文刺破天,战地黄花分外鲜 | |
| 2021: | 毕汝谐奇人奇事之第一美男子臧津津 | |
| 2020: | 希望中国尽快回归到新冠前 | |
| 2020: | 告诉习近平主席:请共产党不要干丧尽天 | |





