长平:小区围墙这块遮羞布

“与国际接轨”曾经是中国主流话语,和与之对立的”中国国情”并存。近年来中国外交从”韬光养晦”改为姿态强硬,恨不得让世界”与中国接轨”。不过,官方仍然发现前者颇具说服力,在推行政策时还是忍不住拿来说事。中国政府决定实行”街区制”,即拆除封闭小区围墙,并将小区内道路充公,引发舆论沸沸扬扬。住房与城乡建设部(简称住建部)宣称,街区制是发达国家通行的做法,利于城市交通和市民生活。
住建部还宣称,推行街区制得到了大多数网友的理解。讽刺的是,就在这则报道后面,可以看见大量网民留言对其进行抨击与讽刺。不少网民说,民主自由也是发达国家通行的做法,为什么就不学习呢?还有网民说,请先把中南海的围墙拆掉吧。更多的意见,则是拆墙要从机关大院开始。
不应该把这些质疑仅仅看作是斗嘴,政治制度与官场文化的确是社会形态的前提条件。没错,街区制是发达国家普遍的城市景观,但是这些国家过去也曾高墙深院,权贵宅地戒备森严。为政府辩护者的常用手法,就是切割前提,截取片断,称之”西方亦然”。比如,上访者与警察发生冲突,他们会强调发达国家也不允许对抗警察,而看不到那里的警察不可以阻止公民自由出行。骚乱发生时,他们会问:”西方国家如何处理这类事情?”巧妙的回答是:”您指的是哪类事情,一党独裁遍地是灾吗?”
中产阶级的安全感与尊严
社会保障缺失,贫富不均加剧,公义良知蒙尘,都会给中产阶级带来不安全感。封闭式小区的商业模式,正是基于这种普遍的社会心态。我在广州居住过的一个小区,多年前曾经发生一起灭门枪案,随后加强门卫制度,业主和家人必须佩戴证件出入,访客则要当着保安的面和业主通话获允,汽车还要打开后盖搜查。最严格的时候,出门如同登机出国。但是,小区内二十万居民鲜见异议。相反,越麻烦越有安全感。
街区方便通行,听上去相当不错。然而,这并非中国社会的首要需求。出行前呼后拥、封闭道路的官员不是这样,普通中产阶级也非如此。区分、隔离和繁琐的程式,除了保障安全,还可以带来身份优越感。中产阶级在满足物质生活之后,追求人格尊严,而且认为自己比底层民众更有资格获得尊严。但是,和底层民众一样,他们也没有权利投票选举官员,在言论自由方面也受到禁止与羞辱,于是他们以日常生活的优越感予以弥补。
中产阶级的社区文化,的确也会带来不一样的小环境。我在广州居住过的另外一个小区,居民们有意识地追求琴棋书画、敬老爱幼、互助互爱等生活氛围。2008年四川地震之后,小区居民组织募捐及志愿者团队,作出了极大的贡献。
抗争”安全感”的同时,小区中产阶级其实也希望政府维护这点可怜的尊严:我们和他们不一样,请保留小区围墙这块遮羞布吧。
小区居民的”特权”
政治权利是人格尊严中不可回避的东西,何况它实际上代表利益角逐。因此,封闭式小区内的业主自治,成为基层的民主操练。业委会的选举,往往争得不可开交。尽管有地方政府的干扰,有商业大佬和黑社会的介入,但是它们基本上都是一人(或一户)一票的普选制。在大量的环保维权活动方面,居民自治带来的民主意识和组织力量显而易见。社区保安与维稳警察之间的冲突也时有所闻。
这是中国政府下决心拆除小区围墙的真正原因。曾经在人民大会堂获得习近平握手恩待的”网络作家”花千芳发表微博道出了真相:”我认为逐步消除’特权’是大势所趋, 虽然封闭小区业主的’特权’很小。不管怎么说,基层政权应该交给居委会,而不是小区的物业公司。对于公共安全的担心,扩招警察比雇佣保安更有效。”
小区居民追求的业主自治等政治权利,的确小得可怜,但是因为围墙外的更多民众连这点权利也没有,所以就成了他们的”特权”。拆除围墙让他们交出”特权”,和所有国人一样成为平等的权利赤贫者,不给潜在的威胁中共政权因素留一丝一毫的机会。

镜像链接:谷歌镜像 | 亚马逊镜像

分类: 新闻, 观点 标签:
  1. 匿名
    2016年2月25日00:02 | #1

    赵国的中产阶级总是牛逼哄哄,自以为买了房很了不起,有了自己的狗窝那个浇尿自嚎的劲儿就甭提有多高啦!

    一个中产阶级跟我鸡冻讲到:无恒产者无恒心,你看看我置业后当了业主,在祖国有了立足之地,有了属于自己的家,和这么大的房产、家产,这都是托祖国的福、托共产党的福,赶上了好时候!千万不要辜负了这个好时代啊,要是在这么好的时代还挣不到属于自己的房子和家业,就是无能啊,你们不要抱怨自己无能了,都像我这样励志奋斗、勤劳肯干吧……
    啊,忘了说了,这个鸡冻的中产有个亲戚在城里当官,官土地审批,他创业办的公司当然也跟这个有关,近水楼台……明白了他所言“勤劳致富”真相了吧,就是靠拉关系从农民变暴发户的……

    中产阶级们始终相信他们购置的房产是属于他们自己自由支配的私产,可是共产祖国啥时候承认过私产合法啊?
    现在连小区都要强行“开放”了,习大大一声令下,你不从也得从,还啥完全属于你个人自由支配的房产呢,统统是赵家家产,暂划在你名下而已,你臭不要脸的中产不要太自作多情了……

  2. 匿名
    2016年2月25日06:19 | #2

    匿名 :
    赵国的中产阶级总是牛逼哄哄,自以为买了房很了不起,有了自己的狗窝那个浇尿自嚎的劲儿就甭提有多高啦!
    一个中产阶级跟我鸡冻讲到:无恒产者无恒心,你看看我置业后当了业主,在祖国有了立足之地,有了属于自己的家,和这么大的房产、家产,这都是托祖国的福、托共产党的福,赶上了好时候!千万不要辜负了这个好时代啊,要是在这么好的时代还挣不到属于自己的房子和家业,就是无能啊,你们不要抱怨自己无能了,都像我这样励志奋斗、勤劳肯干吧……
    啊,忘了说了,这个鸡冻的中产有个亲戚在城里当官,官土地审批,他创业办的公司当然也跟这个有关,近水楼台……明白了他所言“勤劳致富”真相了吧,就是靠拉关系从农民变暴发户的……
    中产阶级们始终相信他们购置的房产是属于他们自己自由支配的私产,可是共产祖国啥时候承认过私产合法啊?
    现在连小区都要强行“开放”了,习大大一声令下,你不从也得从,还啥完全属于你个人自由支配的房产呢,统统是赵家家产,暂划在你名下而已,你臭不要脸的中产不要太自作多情了……

    哦,造你的说法,这事儿全错在臭不要脸的中产身上。
    话说你又是什么玩意。

  3. 2016年2月24日23:06 | #3

    二楼好像没看懂一楼的话。一楼大概有两层意思

  4. Mobile Guest
    2016年2月24日23:52 | #4

    大概?脑洞不要太大

  5. xxx
    2016年2月25日08:21 | #5

    共匪对国际通行的做法断章取义,有利于它自己的时候,就说“要跟国际接轨”;不利于它的时候,就说“要考虑中国的国情”,什么卵臭逼玩意,他妈啦个逼的,等着看习包子有一天死无全尸。
    在这样的政府下,国内真是个不宜居的社会,有能力者赶快走人

  6. 匿名
    2016年2月25日08:21 | #6

    打网游时问一个台湾人这事件看法
    他回说 : 这种社区内的事 ,民众自己可以搞定的事 , 为什么要中央层级的政府来决定? 管太多了吧

  7. 匿名
    2016年2月25日09:55 | #7

    就普通居民而言,社区保安比警察更可靠,保安听命于居民,警察听命于赵家.

  8. 匿名
    2016年2月25日14:05 | #8

    我是个“香蕉”。

    我曾跟我的美国教授谈过你国,跟他的谈话记忆犹新,他曾说了一句至理名言:
    “The tyranny of China is actually caused by its unity.”
    这句话翻译成你国文字就是:
    你国的种种问题,归根结蒂,都因为专制的“统一”,你国人民却恰恰最热衷于该“统一”。

    他这个人喜欢掉书包,引用了许多名言,来说明限制政府权力在现代世界是最最普通的政治常识,而你国恰恰几百年所谓现代化进程,人民却太愚昧,连这点点基本常识都不懂,犯浑的劲头上来总是指责西方或别国是“幼稚”和“无知”,而你国的大一统,才是“成熟”和“理智”的,其不知恰恰相反。

    他告诉我基本权利常识是这样子的:

    Once property rights are established and uniformly defended, all subsequent arrangements are voluntary. No one can impose their will by violating others’ rights. The traditional definition of justice — “to give each his own” — is met.
    一旦私产权利确立并一致加以保护之后,所有的后续安排,都是自愿的。没有人可以随便侵犯他人的权利、强加自己的意志,政府更是如此。传统意义上的正义定义——即“给每个人他所拥有的,即私产神圣不可侵夺,造物主对待每个人都公平合理”——这最最基本权利得到了满足。

    他还引用了很多名言。

    I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.
    — Henry David Thoreau: Civil Disobedience
    我心悦诚服于这句格言——“最好的政府管得最少,”我应该乐于看到它更迅捷、更体系化地行动起来。它应该至始至终都贯彻这一点,我也始终深信,——“最好的政府就是完全没有任何管制的政府,即无政府状态”;因为人们所赋予政府的种种政府管制权,其实人们自来就具有(即:通过公民社会得以实现)。政府统统都是废物:最好的政府也不过是暂且有那么点存在的必要;但通常大多数的政府,甚至有时对于所有的政府而言,它们都是没有存在必要的。
    —— 亨利·大卫·梭罗:公民抗命

    Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.
    – Ronald Reagan
    政府不是解决问题的灵丹妙药,政府本身就是问题所在。
    ——罗纳德·雷根

    Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    – Lord Acton
    权力导致腐败并且绝对权力导致绝对腐败。
    ——阿克顿勋爵

    还有其他引语,你国语文我学得不好,不逐一翻译了,你们可以自行用谷歌翻译成你国语言,对照一下你们现状,照照镜子吧。

    Liberty alone demands, for its realization, the limitation of the public authority, for liberty is the only object which benefits all alike, and provokes no sincere opposition.
    Liberty and good government do not exclude each other; and there are excellent reasons why they should go together. Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. It is not for the sake of a good public administration that it is required, but for the security in the pursuit of the highest objects of civil society, and of private life.
    Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right of being able to do what we ought.
    – Lord Acton

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
    – Thomas Jefferson

    If man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others. For all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit this condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates, which I call by the general name, property.
    – John Locke: Second Treatise of Government, 1690, Chapter IX, Of the Ends of Political Society and Government, Section 123.

    No one can doubt, that the convention for the distinction of property, and for the stability of possession, is of all circumstances the most necessary to the establishment of human society, and that after the agreement for the fixing and observing of this rule, there remains little or nothing to be done towards settling a perfect harmony and concord. All the other passions, besides this of interest, are either easily restrained, or are not of such pernicious consequence, when indulged. Vanity is rather to be esteemed a social passion, and a bond of union among men. Pity and love are to be considered in the same light. And as to envy and revenge, though pernicious, they operate only by intervals, and are directed against particular persons, whom we consider as our superiors or enemies. This avidity alone, of acquiring goods and possessions for ourselves and our nearest friends, is insatiable, perpetual, universal, and directly destructive of society. There scarce is any one, who is not actuated by it; and there is no one, who has not reason to fear from it, when it acts without any restraint, and gives way to its first and most natural movements. So that upon the whole, we are to esteem the difficulties in the establishment of society, to be greater or less, according to those we encounter in regulating and restraining this passion.
    – David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, Chapter 3.2.2, Section. II. Of the Origin of Justice and Property

  1. 本文目前尚无任何 trackbacks 和 pingbacks.