To Hell With The Courts

20世纪初的工人运动中, 1912年在圣地亚哥, 杰克·怀特在一场自由演讲争端中被捕, 入狱6个月. 当被问及他有任何话向法庭说时, 一个速记员写下:

The prosecuting attorney, in his plea to the jury, accused me of saying on a public platform at a public meeting, "To hell with the courts, we know what justice is." He told a great truth when he lied, for if he had searched the innermost recesses of my mind he could have found that thought, never expressed by me before, but which I express now, "To hell with your courts, I know what justice is," for I have sat in your courts room day after day and have seen you, Judge Sloane, and others of your kind, send them to prison because they dared to infringe upon the sacred rights of property. You have become blind and deaf to the rights of man to pursue life and happiness, and you have crushed those rights so that the sacred right of property shall be preserved. Then you tell me to respect the law. I do not. I did violate the law, as I will violate every one of your laws and still come before you and say "To hell with the courts." ...

中文:

那位起诉律师, 在他给陪审团的请诉中, 控诉我在一个公共聚会上演说公共政纲. "去他的法庭, 我们知道什么是正义." 他说谎的时候也说了很多事实, 因为如果他寻遍我大脑最深处的蔽所, 他会发现我未曾表达过, 但今日我会说出来的: "去他的你们的法庭, 我知道什么是正义." 我曾日日坐在你的法庭中, 并且看过你, 斯洛恩法官, 还有其他你这样的人, 把他们送进监狱因为他们胆敢践踏神圣的财产权. 对于人们追求生活和幸福的权利你们变得眼瞎耳聋, 你们粉碎这些权力来保护神圣的财产权, 然后你们要我来尊重法律. 我不会. 我确实违反了法律, 正如我会违反每一条你们的法律然后仍然站到你面前说"去他的法庭."...

我曾想, 最合理的方式是不是最高效的方式. 比如在机场柜台排队办理手续, 是不是每个人都应该按照他办理手续的速度得到相应的惩罚或者奖励. 这个方式自然会加速人们办理手续的速度, 督促慢性子的人手脚迅速一点. 这是不是更合理的方式? 但什么才叫更合理呢? 也许该换个说法, 这是不是这个社会应该采用的方式? 也许这个方式会提高社会的生产效率, 但是必定很多人会反对这个方式. 所以由于众多慢性子人的反对, 这个方式不会被执行. 所以社会, 如果是处于理想的状况下(实在的民主而非某少数阶层统治, 无论他们是不是本着"民主"的名义), 应该是按照最多人同意的方式运行而非最高效率地运行. 其实按极端情况想, 若是按照最高效运行, 那所有人都要戒掉所有休闲娱乐时间来工作. 所以这里要分清两个概念, 社会最高效"运行"并不是最高效"发展". 什么才能算发展? 发展是进步到更合理和优越的状态, 是所有人的利益都能被照顾到的状态, 而非只有某些资产阶级, 某些无产阶级, 某些权贵, 某些精英, 某些急性子的利益被照顾到. 当某些人还生活在社会边缘, 还在为下顿饭而忧愁, 还在忍受肮脏危险的工作环境, 还在遭受性别和肤色的歧视, 还在为了服务"国家利益"(如果那真的是整个国家的利益)而遭受战争摧残, 当他们还继续被这个社会所忽略或忽悠, 咱们敢毫无顾忌地谈"社会正发展"么? 有些人说至少部分人的生活得到了改善. 这么说的, 有几个人是在为政府辩护? 有几个人是在蓄意忽略社会边缘的人? 还有几个人, 是把"社会的发展"和"科技的发展"弄混了? 最终, 这个社会的所有人真比5000年前的人要活得更快乐么?

关于加快机场办理手续的制度假设, 还可以引申一点. 若某个房间有规定, 所有坐坏椅子的人都要赔偿相同的椅子. (并假设椅子是容易坐垮的塑料椅子.) 这个规定公平么? 若是这个房间是某个车站或者机场的唯一休息室呢? 若是这个房间是社会某个会员很得利的组织呢? 若这个房间就是社会, 而它的规定就是法律呢?

In 1912, San Diego, Jack White was arrested in a conflict for free speech, and sentenced six months in prison. He was asked what he had to say with the courts. A stenographer later wrote:

The prosecuting attorney, in his plea to the jury, accused me of saying on a public platform at a public meeting, "To hell with the courts, we know what justice is." He told a great truth when he lied, for if he had searched the innermost recesses of my mind he could have found that thought, never expressed by me before, but which I express now, "To hell with your courts, I know what justice is," for I have sat in your courts room day after day and have seen you, Judge Sloane, and others of your kind, send them to prison because they dared to infringe upon the sacred rights of property. You have become blind and deaf to the rights of man to pursue life and happiness, and you have crushed those rights so that the sacred right of property shall be preserved. Then you tell me to respect the law. I do not. I did violate the law, as I will violate every one of your laws and still come before you and say "To hell with the courts." ...

I used to think whether the most reasonable way is the most efficient way of doing things.  Should we add some rules in airport, saying that every one would get some reward or punishment according to how fast they could do their check-in, thus saving time for others waiting in line? For sure this will increase the speed of check-in, yet is this the better way to do it? But how could we define a “good” way or a “reasonable” way? Or maybe we should say is this the way to be adopted by the society? Maybe it could improve the productivity of the society, yet still, it will encounter enormous resistance from those with a slow habit. Thus it will not be put in effect. So I think, in an ideal circumstances, in which the society is truly democratic instead of controlled by some minority, no matter under the name of “democratic” or not, the society will use rules agreed by most people, not rules the most efficient. Actually, if the society is really operating in its highest efficiency, all people should quit their recreation to work. Thus here we should distinguish between two concepts. “Developing fast” means not “producing fast”. What is developing? It is progressing to a better state of society, where interests of all people can be met, instead of only some capitalists, communists, aristocrats, elites, or those with a fast nature can enjoy the results of development. As long as there are people living on the brink of society, worrying about their next meal, tolerating filthy and perilous working environment, encountering discrimination for their sex or skin color, being tortured by wars for some “national good” (if it is really good for the entire nation), as long as they are still ignored or cheated by the society, how could us still talk about “social development” with ease? Some may argue that at least SOME people have improved their life quality. Among those saying this, how many are defending for the government? How many are deliberately ignoring people from the bottom of society? How many are confusing “social development” with “technology development”? Finally, do all people live a happier life than 5000 years ago?

About the imaginary rules for airport check-in, more may be discussed. If there is a rule in a room saying “all those who break a chair shall compensate a new same one.” (We assume the chairs are plastic and relatively breakable.) Is this rule fair? What if this room is the ONLY rest place in a station or airport? What if the room is an social organization, and its members enjoy major privileges? What if the room is the society, and its rule the law?