Chapter 30 4. Who signed the contract for the empire

There is no free will, so the Empire cannot.Likewise, there is no free will, so empires have no sky.That is, no one is responsible for the rise and fall of the Empire. This seems unreasonable.How can there be no one responsible for such a huge empire?This doesn't seem to be true either.At least, in the eyes of ordinary people, the emperor always has free will.The emperor ruled the world, made decisions arbitrarily, ordered and prohibited, and took life and death, how could he not have free will?But that's just a matter of course.Not all emperors can be dictatorial alone.There are things that are impossible (such as ascending the throne with a weak crown), those that are unwilling (such as being tired of the government), and things that cannot be done (such as leaving power behind).Even the so-called "lord of male guessing" will sometimes be "involuntary", because he is also subject to regulations such as "ancestral family law" and various real interests.The emperor can't do whatever he wants.

Of course, there are also those who go their own way regardless of etiquette and interests.But this can only be called "willfulness", not "freedom".To regard willfulness as freedom just proves that we do not know what freedom is.As I said before, freedom does not mean being free and undisciplined, or doing whatever you want, let alone being irresponsible.On the contrary, freedom has always been associated with responsibility.That is to say, everyone is responsible for what he does, but only if he has freedom of will.Because he is free, he can choose; because he chooses, he is responsible.Therefore, irresponsible choices and behaviors are not freedom, and those without freedom neither have to be responsible nor can they be responsible, but only "commissioned" and "accepted".It is in this sense that the Chinese in the imperial era were neither free nor responsible.

Let me talk about the emperor first.Is the emperor responsible?irresponsible.Because the emperor never admits his mistakes.Almost no emperor in history has really admitted his mistakes.He can't admit his mistakes, at least he can't admit it casually, because he has been legally regarded as "the number one saint in the world".His identity is "Holy Majesty", his body is "Holy Bow", his will is "sacred decree", and his speech is "sacred teaching".No matter what decision he makes, His Majesty Dan will always be a "sage of the emperor".How could he be wrong?How can you admit your mistake?If there is a mistake, it must be something else wrong, such as being deceived by a traitor, or the weather is unfavorable.Therefore, if you want to admit your mistake, you will definitely shirk the responsibility, such as "I regret that I should have killed Zheng Xiandi by mistake when I was drunk" and so on.Here, it is not him who is at fault, but the wine.If it weren't for "drunkness", he would not have made mistakes.Therefore, he only has "regret" (repentance), no "reflection", let alone "repentance".

Up and down.Since the Supreme Son of Heaven did not admit his mistake, of course the subjects of the empire would not admit it either; since the Supreme Son of Heaven was not responsible, of course the subjects of the empire would not be responsible either.That's right, there is a saying in Chinese history that "one person does things and one person is responsible", and there are such people.But that's just bearing the consequences, not taking responsibility.Responsibility, there is no such thing, and it is irresponsible.Therefore, we only have "repentance" and no "apology"; we only have "responsibility" and no "responsibility".

Similarly, since the supreme emperor did not "reflect", the subjects of the empire naturally only "regret".Moreover, when they regret it, they will without exception shift the responsibility to others, or some "objective reasons".For example, the reason why Ah Q was beaten was because he saw the little nun later.Just as Chongzhen's subjugation of the country was due to "the ministers mistaken me", he was not responsible.How can a person be responsible to the country if he cannot even be responsible to himself? It can only be done in the name of being responsible, such as the "edict of guilt".According to Mr. Huang Renyu's statistics, the Western Han Dynasty experienced constant catastrophes.From 178 BC to 2 BC, the emperor issued edicts fifty-seven times for this purpose.Among them, Emperor Xuan had eight times, Emperor Yuan had thirteen times, and Emperor Cheng had twelve times.But this is by no means responsible, but typical irresponsibility and shirk responsibility.Because here, the emperor bears the responsibility that he should not bear.If disasters such as earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, etc. are due to the emperor's free will, of course he should be responsible.The problem is that it is not.So, what "crime edict" did he issue?Obviously, behind this extreme responsibility is extreme irresponsibility.It is not even about introspection and self-criticism, but showing off and showing off: one is to show off one's benevolent heart (without blaming oneself for loving the people), the other is to show off one's selfless character (to take on things that should not be undertaken), and three It is to show off one's special status (only the emperor is qualified to blame himself for natural disasters).Therefore, the emperors of all dynasties did not care about issuing "edicts of guilt", nor were they afraid of harsh words.Because the more you blame yourself, the higher the level of showing off.This is just like his saying that he is a lonely person, the more humble he is, the more boastful he is.In fact, if a person can even be responsible for disasters such as earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, etc., then what is he if he is not a god?

Although the emperor's self-blame is extremely irresponsible, the supreme emperor can be so heartbroken and say "the four parties are guilty, and the crime lies in the joint bow", which has made the majority of the subjects grateful.Don't say dare not, just dare, they don't have the heart to pursue the emperor's responsibility at this moment.As a result, the supreme ruler of the empire evaded the responsibility that he should bear while taking the responsibility that he should not have - the responsibility for the "man-made disaster" among the "natural disasters".In fact, when any natural disaster strikes, the causes of huge losses are often not limited to natural disasters, but also man-made disasters, such as poor early warning, lax prevention, slow rescue, improper command and so on.The reason is often due to the paralysis of institutions, the stupidity of officials, mutual buck-passing, concealment from top to bottom, and even corruption (for example, repairing flood embankments as "tofu slag projects"), so it is a typical man-made disaster.This is really something that should be reviewed and investigated.However, the emperor himself did not say anything, and his subjects did not ask.In the name of the high-sounding "guilty", all responsibilities (including the emperor, and those corrupt officials and stupid officials) have been completely shirked.

The empire's evasion of its responsibilities is all-encompassing.On the one hand, it declares itself to be responsible for what it should not be;This is the so-called "everyone is responsible for the rise and fall of the world".This is a saying that has always been promoted as a "spirit of patriotism", and it does reflect the spirit of national scholars who "take the world as their own responsibility" and should be affirmed.But we have to make it clear that this kind of spirit can be advocated by the people, but not by the government;Because in this way, the subject of responsibility is reversed.In fact, the accurate statement should be "the government is responsible for the rise and fall of the world", or "the emperor is responsible for the rise and fall of the world".Because this world is not owned by ordinary people, but by the emperor, or the ruling group represented by the emperor.The emperor himself "sit in the world", but let the people who don't sit in the world take responsibility for his rise and fall. How can there be such a reason in the world!

In fact, even if the world belongs to them (for example, under a democratic system), they do not have to bear the responsibility.The essence of democracy is "sovereignty lies with the people", but "sovereignty lies with the people" does not mean "responsibility lies with the people".In fact, "the people" are the same as "the way of heaven" and cannot be held accountable.You cannot hold accountable the "people" as a whole concept.Moreover, from a legal point of view, it cannot be investigated, just as "heaven" cannot be investigated.If the sky is guilty, the monarchy of "divine authority" is not justified.Similarly, if the people are guilty, the democratic system of "governing power by the people" is not justified.Therefore, under the monarchy, the emperor can sin against himself, but not against heaven.Under a democratic system, the president can blame himself but not the people (you cannot blame the people for not electing him as president).The people cannot be sinned, so "the world is rising and falling, and everyone is not responsible."

In fact, everyone is not responsible either.How can an ordinary man who has no power and power and can't even protect his wife and children bear the heavy responsibility of "the rise and fall of the world"?If they insist on saying that they have any responsibility, it is only to do their own job well, such as planting their own "responsibility field".Responsibility and identity must be symmetrical.Therefore, we can only say that farmers are responsible for planting crops well; workers are responsible for operating machines well; teachers are responsible for teaching students well.Because that is their responsibility.The world is not symmetrical to the people, and the rise and fall of the world is not their responsibility, so it cannot be said that "every man is responsible for the rise and fall of the world".

Of course, everyone is not responsible for the rise and fall of the world. This does not mean that the people have no right to intervene in the affairs of the country, and it does not mean that everyone does not care about the rise and fall of the world.But this cannot be called "the rise and fall of the world, everyone is responsible", it can only be called "the rise and fall of the world, everyone has a heart", or "the rise and fall of the world, everyone can ask".Moreover, it is only concerned about asking questions.As for whether the world will rise or fall in the end, it is not their responsibility.If "every man is responsible for the rise and fall of the world" actually becomes a consensus, or even a fact (for example, the people spontaneously take up arms to defend their homes and the country), then it can only show that those who should be responsible are not responsible, and those who can be responsible are not.

It is the government that should and can be responsible.As the maker and implementer of state decrees, the government bears the unshirkable responsibility for the rise and fall of the world.But there is a premise here, that is, the authorizer does not perform administration himself, just like the company's general meeting of shareholders does not specifically manage the company.It is precisely because he does not manage that he can be held accountable to the manager.Likewise, in a democracy, the people and their representatives cannot administer.In a monarchy, the monarch cannot administer.Because administrators are responsible, but those in charge cannot be held accountable.Should the person in charge be held accountable, should he ask himself?The result must be that there is neither accountability nor accountability.In political science, this is the so-called "the head of state must have no responsibility, and then the cabinet can be blamed"; "the monarch must have no responsibility, and then the ministers can be blamed".That is to say, there must be responsible (agents) and irresponsible (authorizers).Those who are responsible cannot be held accountable, and those who are held accountable cannot be held accountable.Someone is accountable, someone is responsible, and there is responsibility. The imperial system, however, contradicts this principle.First of all, it is impossible for its authorizer to be held accountable, because its authorizer is "Heaven".Oh God!God, when did you question its agent (the Son of Heaven)?Although "God's will" is also interpreted as "the will of the people" (Heaven sees itself, the people see it, and God listens to it, the people listen to it), but how can the people call themselves "Heaven"?Don't say that they never thought of asking the "agent" (the emperor), even if they wanted to, they couldn't ask.Therefore, all emperors can be irresponsible without scruple.Irresponsibility is also inevitable.Because he has neither an actual responsible person nor an actual accountable person, and there is no immediate reward or punishment.Besides, there is no reward (you can no longer raise the level or pay more wages), and there is no punishment (you cannot immediately replace it).There is no reward or punishment, and no accountability, but it is too naive to expect him to be extremely responsible? The government is not responsible either.Because its responsibility and responsibility relationship are as unclear as the property rights of the empire.It is the emperor, not the imperial government, who accepts the authorization of "God's will" or "people's will".After accepting the authorization, the emperor himself administered the administration himself (at least in theory and in name, called "pro-government"), so he did not have the right of accountability.In fact, the emperor never held the government accountable, but regarded individual officials as "scapegoats".Their task is not to bear "responsibility", but to bear "consequences".When the emperor needs "civilian anger" (which can also be understood as "rest of heaven's anger"), one or several of them will be removed from office, investigated and even sent to the army to beheaded.This is actually "questioning guilt", not "accountability".The responsibility for the man-made disaster is still unaccounted for, because that responsibility ultimately belongs to the emperor. As for the people, they have never been held accountable.Even if there is, in theory, you can only ask the emperor, not the government, because the government is not a "responsible cabinet".Precisely because this government cannot be held accountable, neither the central government nor the local governments of the empire can be called "government", but can only be called "imperial court" and "yamen" respectively.The difference between the government and the yamen is that the government serves the people, while the yamen rules the people.Therefore, if the government in a democratic country does not serve well, the people can hold it accountable; while the people in an autocratic country can only regard the government as a tiger’s mouth and avoid it for fear of being too late, how can they be held accountable? As a result, the empire is often in a state of "anarchy with government", that is, there is a government in name but no government in fact.For example, when a decision is made, someone makes a decision, but no one is responsible after the accident; or the person who made the decision is not responsible, and only the person responsible is held accountable.The most typical evidence is the Boxer Change.It was the Empress Dowager Cixi who declared the war, but it was someone else who took the blame.Moreover, as soon as the Eight-Power Allied Forces attacked, the supreme ruler who should have been in charge ran away without a trace.Don't even mention the word responsibility.In comparison, on the contrary, the heads of state and the royal family of those virtual republics or constitutional monarchies are more responsible.For example, the Queen Mother of England, who died at the age of 101 in the spring of 2002, was respected because she never left London during the war, even though she had no such responsibility and obligation.