Chapter 18 6. Declaration of Human Rights

The full text of Yang Zhu’s Human Rights Declaration is as follows— If you lose a tiny bit of profit to the world, you will not give it back, and if you know the world, you will not take it. Everyone does not lose a cent, everyone is not good for the world, and the world will be governed. The manifesto is concise, with only two paragraphs in total.The second paragraph does not need to be explained, it is the source of Taoism, which was later expressed by Zhuangzi: A truly good society is when everyone forgets each other, and no one needs to be rescued or sacrificed.It can be deduced from this that, of course, no one can take out a hair, because there is no need for a hair at all.

Zhuangzi and Yang Zhu are in the same line. But what deserves more attention is the first paragraph. The first paragraph includes two sentences, which can be understood and translated as follows: If I am asked to sacrifice myself to satisfy the world, I will not do it; if I am asked to take all the world to satisfy myself, I will not do it.This is the complete version of Yang Zhu's thoughts. Obviously, Yang Zhu is speaking extremely here again.He set up two diametrically opposed and fundamentally opposite extremes: Lose a little, gain the world.Knowing the world means taking all of the world, or all of the world.This is beyond imagination.A slight loss is insignificant.What a world of difference!

So we can't help wondering: Is this unimaginable "knowledge of the world" that no one can match?Because in Yang Zhu's case, knowing the world and losing even a little bit are two contradictory and opposite sides.Therefore, if you oppose the whole world, you have to support it without losing a single cent.If you can't know the world, you have to support everything. Isn't this a logical trap? Obviously, if you want to solve this case, you have to ask Yang Zhu a question: Is it okay to take a penny if you don't know the world? Too bad nobody asked. But the answer is not difficult to know.Because according to Meng Sunyang's logic, if you pull out a hair, you will cut off ten fingers, and if you cut off ten fingers, you will sacrifice your five internal organs, and if you sacrifice five internal organs, you will sacrifice your whole body.Then, in the same way, if you can take one cent, you can take ten cents, one hundred cents, ten thousand cents, and in the end it is bound to take all the world.

So, since you don't take out a dime, you don't take a dime. Does it make sense? Makes sense. In fact, although Yang Zhu did not harm others, he did not harm others either.Not only does it not harm people, it does not even damage things.Yang Zhu said that the reason why wisdom is valuable is to protect oneself.The reason why force is despicable is because it violates others, including small animals and the natural world.This is called "Wisdom is valuable, keeping me is precious; strength is cheap, and invading things is cheap."Of course, in order to survive, human beings have to use other people and other things.However, it can be used, but not possessed.If it is arrogantly possessed privately, it is called "aggressive selfishness" (Horizontal reading Qusheng).

Selfishness is domination.Moreover, all possession is usurpation, because the property rights are not ours.Not only small animals and nature, but not even our bodies.Whose is that?of the world.Therefore, arbitrarily possessing oneself is called "self-serving the body of the world"; Both of these are opposed by Yang Zhu. so what should I do now? To publicize the body of the world, publicize the things of the world, return what originally belonged to the world to the world, and become the common property of all human beings in the world. Yes, the world is public. Isn't this Mozi's ideal?

Exactly.Yang Zhu and Mozi parted ways, but ended up the same way. In fact, Mozi and Yang Zhu, just like Mencius and Han Fei, are both positive and negative sides of the same coin.Mencius and Han Fei are civil rights and monarchy.Mencius defended the rights of the people, while Han Fei protected the rights of the monarch.Mozi and Yang Zhu are public power and private power.Mozi advocated public rights, while Yang Zhu defended private rights.His statement of "the world will not give back even a small profit, and the world will not take anything from the whole world" is both a declaration of human rights and a statement of rights protection.

Is that right? yes.In fact, this sentence has a subject.The subject is "ancient man", that is, the ancient leaders.We know that borrowing from the past is to satirize the present.Therefore, it can be translated like this: If I want to sacrifice myself to satisfy the world, I will not do it; neither will you take all the world to satisfy yourself. Isn't this rights protection? of course.Moreover, what he upholds is not general civil rights, but everyone's individual rights—private rights. Does privacy matter? Very important. Private rights are relative to public rights.The former is called private power, and the latter is called public power.Without the transfer of private rights, public power has neither legitimacy nor necessity.Therefore, public power must not infringe upon private rights.Even if you claim to be impartial, it won't work.

Without private rights, there would be no public rights. Without private rights, there will be no human rights. Unfortunately, we often forget this, or even know it. There is of course a reason for this. The reason lies in the ownership system in our history, which is neither public (public ownership) nor private (individual ownership), but family ownership (family ownership, or family ownership).Without private property (personal property), how can there be private rights (personal rights)? Therefore, the core of our culture must be "group consciousness" (please refer to the third volume of the history of China, "Founders").In such a cultural environment and cultural atmosphere, talking about public rights is politically correct, and talking about private rights is inevitably risky.So, we dare not speak, don't want to speak, and even don't know how to speak.

For this reason, when Yang Zhu's theory of private rights was published, it shocked the world.Also for this reason, he was quickly stigmatized and demonized.People half-knowledgedly ridiculed his "none of it" and didn't know that "everyone does not lose a penny, and everyone benefits the world" should really be an ideal. Zhuangzi may be the only one who has inherited Yang Zhu's ideological bloodline. Zhuangzi is extraordinary and refined, and he does not seem to be involved in this debate between monarchy and civil rights, public rights and private rights.But as a poet-philosopher, he poetically pondered and answered an equally important question——

What is the meaning of life, where is the value of life?

---

Notes: