Freedom Farm

It is the harvest season, when people gather goods which they have paid for.

Stealing a line from Freedom Farm, all animals are free, but some animals are freer than others. The story tells that a group of animals felt so free themselves that they decided to free the animals in another farm by attacking them. They successfully trashed that farm by kicking around. In the meanwhile some of the combat animals accidentally kicked each other and some of them got injured. They felt the pain and decided they should feel free to eat all the food stored in that farm. As the food turned out to be too much to be eaten up in one day, it then becomes an issue how to move those food back to their own farm so that they don’t have to work any more. After some brain storming they came up with a new plan…

All existences are reasonable, but some existences are more reasonable than others.

Thoughts on the word “reasonable”. Reasoning is a process of making senses of something. Such a process is created for the sake of making senses of something even if that thing seemed to be wrong by common senses. Once this process is processed, the reasoning is done. No matter how ridiculous a thing originally looks like, once a reasoning of it is given, it is verified automatically and everybody else has to accept its truism. Therefore, saying something is reasonable has nothing to do with its being truism or not. It only matters who tries to reason it and how successful the reasoning is. As a matter of fact, in the Freedom Farm, one notices that whenever the freer animals decide to reason something, they almost always succeed in doing that. Hence anything decided to be reasonable by the freer animals are automatically true. In the long run, it becomes a habit of every other animal in any farms to accept whatever they say or try to say.

Advertisements

10 Comments

Filed under fictional

10 responses to “Freedom Farm

  1. Ben

    I noticed that you don’t have the report about Tibetan’s terrorism attack. Check this out:
    http://benincampus.blogspot.com/2008/04/tibetans-suicide-attack.html

    (I lost track of your blog after you moved.)

  2. vieplivee

    I didn’t intend to write anything political. I write my thoughts, for future references. It is also my humble opinion that fashionable patriotism will soon be gone, but the care about events happening around us should remain.

  3. suqing17

    This actually goes with my thoughts on human rights. What are human rights? Who defines human rights? If we strip off all the definitions and regulations by society, the only basic right we have as a human being, is the right to live. The rest are additional conditions agreed by the mainstream of society, as the result of compromise. This means human rights are changeable, questionable, and NOT essential. Whoever dominant the society, have the right to define and prioritize it.

  4. vieplivee

    Yes, the fact that there exist different ways of defining “human rights” says it all. I would rather trust my own feelings and the fairness of all humans as a group than being taught by unrelated others what rights I myself, as a human being, am entitled to have. On the other hand, I do believe in order to have fairness among all humans, there are certain things people are deprived of while they are entitled with. We should be carefully figuring out the definition and the rest might follow easily.

  5. Haha2007

    Someone asked about definitions of human rights. There is a universal declaration from UN, that can be read here for example:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

    All rights (and morals) are social norms, more or less. I’m not sure why the right to live is more essential than the others – it’s also agreed upon by society.

    Also, if we say that rights should be given to the prevailing “dominant society”, then aren’t we just saying that the strong should rule? What is then ever wrong with imperialism or hegemonism?

  6. Cindy6

    Shoving down a set of “human rights” defined by certain dominant societies isn’t in and of itself a form of imperialism?

  7. Haha2007

    A large majority of the world’s countries in UN have accepted the human rights as laid out in the declaration above. This doesn’t mean that any country follows it completely, but it is there (the question of definition is answered) and it is ratified (certainly a country signs because it wants to, and not because it feels pressurized by “dominant societies”?).

    Human rights is a problematic concept, however, in the sense that people make it overtly abstract or too simplistic. Would anyone put quotation marks around cruelty, war crimes, killings, stealing of people’s property etc? Of course not. Everybody agrees those things are bad. So perhaps people who really care about human rights should center around more generally accepted, down-to-earth concepts. That’s, after all, why the concept was developed in the first place.

  8. suqing17

    1.To answer the question ‘why the right to live is more essential than the others’, this is simple: needs of human being have priorities. Maslow’s hierarchy says it all. Other ‘rights’ come with the social association. Life comes by nature independently.
    2.Talking about ‘social norm’ and denying the dominant defining the rules is self-conflicted. And plus, the whole concept of human rights is based on western philosophy and theology . How come that becomes the ‘norm’ of our society, which has a very different value system? (Call me cynic, but I never believe the claim that ‘all men are created equal’–it’s totally impossible in our world which almost everything is NORMALLY distributed. The reality is , all men SHOULD be equal in the infinite future.)
    3. Countries signing UN’s declaration doesn’t mean much. It’s a political organization, which compromises and people do the same thing for different motivations all the time. Several weeks ago countries vetoed the proposal including water as human rights because it harms Canada’s interest. Isn’t it ironic?
    4.Human rights is something fancy. Its complete realization is like owning a Ferrari before I reach 30–other than the legitimacy of the dreaming, it also relies on at least two other dimensions: timing and financial condition.

  9. Haha2007

    1: Certainly you need to live in order to enjoy any other rights 😉 . But there is a difference between needs and rights. I have a need to eat, but a state can deny me the right to fulfill that need, so that I die. Rights are in many ways just the possibility to fulfill needs.

    2. You speak about two different things here:
    2a. Talking about social norms without mentioning the “dominant norm” is a contradiction.

    I can’t see how it is. What I mean is that norms are created by societies, yes. And a dominant society has the possibility to, and probably to a large extent, influences or even forces other societies to accept its norms.

    2b. Human rights is a Western construct not suitable for our society (China), made out of Western thought and theology.

    One can reason about how different these different value systems are, or what they might have in common. Please comment on some of the differences that make it necessary for China to have its own definition, or shun the concept altogether.

    As to whether Western theology influenced the creation of the concept, that might be true, but I think we also need to consider that religion was an oppressive force in Europe that was countered by the enlightenment, and that it was thinkers of the enlightenment that created the concept. Most of these thinkers were notably anti-religion.

    3. The declaration of human rights in the UN has no binding force, or doesn’t mean much.

    Unfortunately yes, it’s an ideal, and signing it doesn’t mean countries make much effort to implement it. That doesn’t invalidate the ideal itself, and it has become an important guideline internationally. And all countries that have signed it should be open for scrutiny – specifically the Western countries.

    4. The complete realization of human rights is an unattainable ideal.

    Sure. However, it’s not that binary – either you have it, or you have it not. It’s more complicated than that.

    Also, many rights, like the right to choose where to live, doesn’t require a country to be rich. It just requires the government not to spend a lot of money on a bureaucratic system that prohibits people from moving. 🙂

    I reiterate my previous point – I think that people who understand the concept properly should use other, more shared concepts instead. People of all countries are opposed to war, cruelty, murder, stealing etc. Everybody could agree on that. Nobody says things like “the so-called concept of ‘peace’ is alien to our values.”

  10. suqing17

    We don’t really need to argue. Basically we are just emphasizing two sizes of a coin. I am more pessimistic, you are more optimistic. I am saying what we can’t achieve now, you are talking about what we will have in the future.
    We both agree that human rights are good. We both agree that the complete realization takes time. My point is, the priority and method of the realization, should be decided by Chinese, not somebody else.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s