Governability of China

--- a new political science

Copyright © May 2007, Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong


In the book The Clash of Civilizations -- and the Remaking of World Order (ISBN 0-684-8441-9), Dr. Huntington wrote, "Analysts compare the emergence of China to the rise of Wilhelmine Germany as the dominant power in Europe in the late nineteenth century. The emergence of new great powers is always highly destabilizing, and if it occurs, China's emergence as a major power will dwarf any comparable phenomena during the last half of the second millennium. 'The size of China's displacement of the world,' Lee Kuan Yew observed in 1994,' is such that the world must find a new balance in 30 to 40 years. It's not possible to pretend that this is just another big player. This is the biggest player in the history of man.' If Chinese economic development continues for another decade, as seems possible, and if China maintains its unity during the succession period, as seems probable, East Asian countries and the world will have to respond to the increasingly assertive role of this biggest player in human history." (page 231)

Obviously, the statement above is conditional and is hinged on the condition of "if China maintains its unity during the succession period." Thus, many Sinologists have predicted the eventual collapse of China or of Chinese government under many different scenarios. However, most of those analyses were based on the political theory of the West, which might not be applicable in Chinese culture.

A new theory can never be accepted or understood if it cannot make a contact with the old theory, as we always view the world only from the place where we stand, perhaps, from the place where we choose to stand. Thus, in this paper, I will summarize the Western Political Theory first. Then, I will outline the Chinese Political Theory. Finally, I will make a comparison between the two.

Yet, I have discovered that most of college textbook on political science for freshman (such as the book, Governing by Consent, by John F. Bibby, ISBN 0-87187-527-6) discusses the US political system as it is without going into the details of its underlying theory and history. Thus, I am using three Classic Canons as the base for this discussion, and they are:

  1. Two Treatises of Government, by John Locke, the third edition of 1698. This book consists of two books,
  2. The Social Contract, by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, translated by G.D. H. Cole, 1988, ISBN 087975-443-3
  3. Common Sense, Rights of Man by Thomas Paine, from rare editions of 1791 and 1792.

In the book Governing by Consent, John Bibby wrote, "The government is an institution that through its actions has ultimate authority to allocate values in society -- to decide 'who gets what, when, how.' ... Government decisions are distinguished from those of other organizations by the fact that they are binding for all of society. ... have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. ... to compel compliance. ... No other organizations in this society can legitimately use physical force." (page 7 - 8)

Thus, the scope of this paper will be confined within three issues only.


I. Western Political Theories

II. Knowing the essence of Body Politic

III. The Political Theory of China

IV. The Real Politic

Epilogue

I. Western Political Theories

John Locke's second treatise was the foundation for the modern Western political theory. Yet, his second treatise was really a product of his first treatise. Thus, we should first find out what the political theory was in Europe before Locke's theory.

I. Political theory of Sir Robert Filmer -- it is wholly based on the Old Testament.

  1. Adam's Title to Sovereignty was by a Donation from God.

    "26. And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    "27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them.

    "28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1: 26 - 28)

    "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." (Genesis 2 : 19)

  2. Adam's Title to Sovereignty was by the subjection of Eve.

    "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3 : 16)

  3. Adam's Title of Sovereignty was by Fatherhood.

    "And Adam called his Wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living." (Genesis 3 : 20)
    "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.
    And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground." (Genesis 4 : 1 - 2)

    In the book one of Locke, he wrote, "The Power of making Laws of Life and Death, is indeed a Mark of Sovereignty,..." (page 126)

    "And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. (Exodus 21 : 15)
    "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21 : 17)

    "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20 : 9)

    "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
    Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
    And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
    And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." (Deuteronomy 21 : 18 - 21)

    "And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the Lord: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth." (Zechariah 13 : 3)

    "For God commanded, saying Honour Thy Father and Mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (Matthew 15 : 4)

    "... [Sir Robert Filmer's words] ... That every man that is born is so far from being free, that by his very birth he becomes a Subject of him that begets him." (page 49, Book one of Locke)

    "This Subjection of Children being, says he [Sir Robert], the Foundation of all Regal Authority." (page 69, Book one of Locke)

  4. The Conveyance of Adam's Sovereign Monarchical Power was with the Inheritance from Adam and with the law of Primogeniture.

With the four facts above, Sir Robert Filmer concluded, "That all Government is absolute Monarch. And the Ground he builds on, is this, That no Man is Born Free." (page 2, Book one of Locke) This Sir Filmer's theory is a theory of government by Divine Right.

John Locke wrote 161 pages (the first Treatise of Government) in order to overthrown Sir Robert Filmer's theory. I will not quote them in details here. One of his key objection was about the conveyance of sovereignty via inheritance. Locke wrote, "For those who would perswade us, that by being born under any Government, we are naturally Subjects to it, and have no more any title or pretence to the freedom of the State of Nature, have no other reason (bating that Paternal Power, which we have already answer'd) to produce for it, but only because our Fathers or Progenitors passed away their natural Liberty, and thereby bound up themselves and their Posterity to a perpetual subjection to the Government, which they themselves submitted to. 'Tis true, that whatever Engagements or Promises any one made for himself, he is under the Obligation of them, but cannot by any Compact whatsoever, bind his Children or Posterity. For his Son, when a Man, being altogether as free as the Father can no more give away the liberty of the Son, then it can of any body else." (page 255, Book two of Locke)

This view of Locke gave rise to the concept of "that all men are born free" and was the driving force for America's Independence. For the declaration of English Parliament in 1688 to William and Mary, "The Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons, do, in the name of the people aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities, for ever," in the book Rights of man, Thomas Paine wrote, "There never did, there never will, and there never can exist a parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controuling posterity to the 'end of time,' ... The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave, is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. ... The parliament or the people of 1688, or of any other period, had no more right to dispose of the people of the present day, or to bind or to controul them in any shape whatever, than the parliament or the people of the present day have to dispose of, bind or controul those who are to live a hundred or a thousand years hence. (page 9)
"Immortal power is not a human right, and therefore cannot be a right of parliament. (page 13, ibid)
"... as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it." (page 14, ibid)

Paine wrote again, "Every history of the creation, and every traditionary account, whether from the lettered or un-lettered world, however they may vary in their opinion or belief of certain particulars, all agree in establishing one point, the unity of man; by which I mean that man is all of one degree, and consequently that all men are born equal, and with equal natural rights, and the same manner as if posterity had been continued by creation instead of generation, the latter being only the mode by which the former is carried forward; and consequently, every child born into the world must be considered as deriving its existence from God. The world is as new to him as it was to the first man that existed, and his natural right in it is of the same kind." (page 46, ibid)

Obviously, the above views of Locke and Paine must give rise to a new Political Theory. Locke wrote, "All these premises having, as I think, been clearly made out, it is impossible that the Rulers now on Earth, should make any benefit, or derive any the least shadow of Authority from that, which is held to be the Fountain of all Power, Adam's Private Dominion and Paternal Jurisdiction, so that, he that will not give just occasion, to think that all Government in the World is the product only of Force and Violence, and that Men live together by no other Rules but that of Beasts, where the strongest carries it, and so lay a Foundation for perpetual Disorder and Mischief, Tumult, Sedition and Rebellion (things that the followers of that Hypothesis so loudly cry out against) must of necessity find out another rise of Government, another Original of Political Power, and another way of designing and knowing the Person that have it, then what Sir Robert F. hath taught us." (page 166, Book two of Locke)


II. Political Theory of Locke, Rousseau and Paine -- it consists of three parts:

A: The Pre-civil State

The pre-civil state consists of six issues.
  1. There are two states in the State of Nature.

  2. There could be having a State of War in the State of Nature.
    Locke wrote, "The State of War is a State of Enmity and Destruction; ... with him against whom he has declared such an Intention, and so has exposed his Life to the others Power to be taken away by him. ... For by the Fundamental Law of Nature, Man being to be preserved, as much as possible, when all cannot be preserv'd, the safety of the Innocent is to be preferred: And one may destroy a Man who makes War upon him, ..." (page 177, ibid)

  3. Slavery is a State of War.
    Locke wrote, "As Freedom of Nature is to be under no other restraint but the Law of Nature. ... For a Man, not having the Power of his own Life, cannot, by Compact, or his own Consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the Absolute Arbitrary Power of another, to take away his Life, ... For, whenever he finds the hardship of his Slavery out-weigh the value of his Life, 'tis in his Power, by resisting the Will of his Master, to draw on himself the Death he desires. This is the perfect condition of slavery, which is nothing else, but the State of War continued, ..." (page 182 - 183, ibid)

    Obviously, before Locke and Rousseau, there was the Right of slavery in Europe. In the book The Social Contract, Rousseau wrote, "Grotius and the rest find in war another origin for the so-called right of slavery. The victor having, as they hold, the right of killing the vanquished, the latter can buy back his life at the price of his liberty; and this convention is the more legitimate because it is to the advantage of both parties.
    But it is clear that this supposed right to kill the conquered is by no means deducible from the state of war. Men, from the mere fact that, while they are living in their primitive independence, they have no mutual relations stable enough to constitute either the state of peace or the state of war, cannot be naturally enemies. War is constituted by a relation between things, and not between persons; and, as the state of war cannot arise out of simple personal relations, ...
    War then is a relation, not between man and man, but between State and State, and individuals are enemies only accidentally, not as men, nor even as citizens, but as soldiers; not as members of their country, but as its defenders. Finally, each State can have for enemies only other States, and not men; for between things disparate in nature there can be no real relation.
    ...
    The object of the war being the destruction of the hostile State, the other side has a right to kill its defenders, while they are bearing arms; but as soon as they lay them down and surrender, they cease to be enemies or instruments of the enemy, and become once more merely men, whose life no one has any right to take.
    ...
    If war does not give the conqueror the right to massacre the conquered peoples, the right to enslave them cannot be based upon a right which does not exist. ... the right to enslave him cannot therefore be derived from the right to kill him.
    ...
    So, from whatever aspect we regard the question, the right of slavery is null and void, not only as being illegitimate, but also because it is absurd and meaningless. The words slave and right contradict each other, and are mutually exclusive." (page 19 - 21, The Social Contract)

  4. There is a Law of Nature.
    Locke wrote, "The State of Nature, has a Law of Nature to govern it which obliges every one, and Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who will but consult it; That being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty or Possessions; ..." (page 169, Book two of Locke)

    Locke again wrote, "The Freedom then of Man and Liberty of acting according to his own Will, is grounded on his having Reason, which is able to instruct him in that Law he is to govern himself by, and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own will. To turn him loose to an unrestrain'd Liberty, before he has Reason to guide him, is not the allowing him the privilege of his Nature to be free; but to thrust him out amongst Brutes, and abandon him to a state as wretched,..." (page 211, ibid)

  5. There are three Rights in the State of Nature.

    Locke again wrote, "From these two distinct Rights, the one of punishing the Crime for restraint, and preventing the like Offence, which right of punishing is in every body; the other of taking reparation, which belongs only to the injured party, ..." (page 172, ibid)

  6. There are defects and inconveniences in the State of Nature.

B. The rise to a Civil Society

There are six issues about this Civil Society.

  1. The transformation -- the rise to Civil Society.
    Locke wrote, "Man being born, as has been proved, with a Title to perfect Freedom, and an uncontrouled enjoyment of all the Rights and Priviledges of the Law of Nature, equally with any other Man, or Number of Men in the World, hath by Nature a Power, not only to preserve his Property, that is, his Life, Liberty and Estate, against the Injuries and Attempts of other Men; but to judge of, and punish the breaches of that Law in others, as he is perswaded the offence deserves, even with Death it self, in Crimes where the heinousness of the Fact, in his Opinion, requires it. But because no Political Society can be, nor subsist without having in it self the Power to preserve the Property, and in order thereunto punish the Offences of all those of that Society: There, and there only is Political Society: where every one of the Members hath quitted this natural Power, resign'd it up into the hands of the Community in all cases that exclude him not from appealing for Protection to the Law established by it. And thus all private judgement of every particular Member being excluded, the Community comes to be Umpire, by settled standing Rules; indifferent and the same to all Parties: And by Men having Authority from the Community for the execution of those Rules, decides all the differences that may happen between any Members of that Society, concerning any matter of right, and punishes those Offences which any Member hath committed against the Society with such Penalties as the Law has established; whereby it is easie to discern who are, and who are not, in Political Society together. Those who are united into one Body, and have a common establish'd Law and Judicature to appeal to, with Authority to decide Controversies between them, and punish Offenders, are in Civil Society one with another; but those who have no such common Appeal, I mean on Earth, are still in the state of Nature, each being where there is no other, Judge for himself, and Executioner; which is, as I have before shew'd it, the perfect state of Nature." (page 229 - 230, Book two of Locke)

  2. The differences between the Pre-civil State and the Civil Society:
    Paine wrote, "Hitherto we have spoken only (and that but in part) of the natural rights of man. We have now to consider the civil rights of man, and to shew how the one originates out of the other. ... His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights. ... Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness; which are not injurious to the natural rights of others. --- Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection.
    From this short review, it will be easy to distinguish between that class of natural rights which man retains after entering into society, and those which he throws into common stock as a member of society.
    The natural rights which he retains, are all those in which the power to execute is as perfect in the individual as the right itself. Among this class, as is before mentioned, are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind: consequently, religion is one of those rights. The natural rights which are not retained, are all those in which, though the right is perfect in the individual, the power to execute them is defective. (page 48 - 49, Rights of Man)

    In fact, this pre-civil to civil transformation consists of two parts:

    Rousseau wrote, "Finally, each man, in giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody, and as there is no associate over which he does not acquire the same right as he yields others over himself, he gains an equivalent for everything he loses, and an increase of force for the preservation of what he has." (page 24, The Social Contract)

    Note: For convenience, I will call this pre-civil to civil transformation as Locke-Rousseau-Paine process, or LRP process in short.

  3. The rise of a new species -- the Sovereign.
    As Rousseau said, "... and an increase of force for the preservation of what he has." That is, in addition to as a transformation, the LRP process is, in fact, a creation process.

    Locke wrote, "That all Men by Nature are equal; I cannot be supposed to understand all sorts of Equality: Age or Virtue may give Men a just Precedency: Excellency of Parts and Merit may place others above the Common Level: Birth may subject some, and Alliance of Benefits others to pay an Observance to those to whom Nature, Gratitude or other Respects may have made it due; ...
    Children, I confess are not born in this full state of Equality, though they are born to it. Their Parents have a sort of Rule and Jurisdiction over them when they come into the World,..." (page 204 - 205, Book two of Locke)

    Then, man is not born free even in the State of Nature. The best we can say is that man is born to be free. Again, man is not equal in many aspects in the real life. The best we can say is that all men ought to be born equal. However, even if the premise of LRP that man is born free and equal as two states in the State of Nature were wrong, it has no effect to the reality of Civil Liberty after the LRP process. After the LRP process, the Civil Liberty is a reality. Then, what is the essence of the LRP process? It encompasses three parts:

    1. It is a transformation process:
      • Law of Nature ----> Civil Law
      • Rights of Nature ----> Civil Liberty
    2. It is a creation process -- the rise of CommonWealth, the Body Politic or the Sovereign.
    3. It is a moral process -- the terms of "to be free" and "ought to be equal" are terms of moral philosophy. Rousseau wrote, "At once, in place of the individual personality of each contracting party, this act of association creates a moral and collective body...
      and now takes that of Republic or body politic; it is called by its members State when passive, Sovereign when active,..." (page 24 - 25, The Social Contract"

      Rousseau wrote, "If the State is a moral person whose life is in the union of its members, and if the most important of its cares is the care for it own preservation, it must have a universal and compelling force, in order to move and dispose each part as may be most advantageous to the whole. ... and it is this power which, under the direction of the general will bears, as I have said, the name of Sovereignty." (page 36, ibid)


  4. The embodiment of the Sovereign -- the Government.

    Theoretically, the Sovereign and its embodiment should be two sides of the same coin. Yet, in practice, many people use only one part of the embodiment as Sovereign itself, and this is wrong. Paine wrote, "... the French constitution distinguishes between the King and the Sovereign: It considers the station of King as official, and places Sovereignty in the nation. (page 79, Rights of Man)
    "The right of a Parliament is only a right in trust, a right by delegation, and that but from a very small part of the nation; ..." (page 123, ibid)

  5. The different types of embodiment -- the monarchy, the aristocracy and the democracy.
    Rousseau wrote, "... the Sovereign may commit the charge the government to the whole people or to the majority of the people, so that more citizens are magistrates than are mere private individuals. This form of government is called democracy.
    Or it may restrict the government to a small number, so that there are more private citizen than magistrates; and this is named aristocracy.
    Lastly, it may concentrate the whole government in the hands of a single magistrate from whom all others hold their power. This third form is the most usual, and is called monarchy, or royal government." (page 67, The Social Contract)

    That is, the monarchy, the aristocracy and the democracy are all products of LRP process.

  6. The decaying paths and the death of the Body Politic.
    Rousseau wrote, "... The moment a master exists, there is no longer a Sovereign, and from that moment the body politic has ceased to exist." (page 32, The Social Contract)

    Locke wrote, " As usurpation is the exercise of Power which another hath a Right to; so Tyranny is the exercise of Power beyond Right, which no Body can have a Right to. And this is making use of the Power any one has in his hands; not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage." (page 321, Book two of Locke)
    Note: Power without Right for doing public good is called Prerogative.

    Locke wrote, "Despotical Power is an Absolute, Arbitrary Power one Man has over another, to take away his Life whenever he pleases; and this is a Power which neither Nature gives, for it has made no such distinction between one Man and another, nor Compact can convey." (page 301, Book two of Locke)

    Thus, the Tyranny and the Despotism are two decaying paths for the LRP process. That is, they are parts of the LRP process.

C: Is LRP process universal?

Up to this point, there is no issue of right (correct) or wrong about this LRP process. Even if all its premises were wrong, it has produced a workable framework for Real Politic. Even if man were born not free and not equal, as long as the powerful and the meek are all willing to enter into this LRP process, the Body Politic is born. So, the premise of LRP that man is born free and equal could be a sufficient condition for this LRP process; it is definitely not a necessary condition. Only for Logic, the conclusion of a logic is wholly depended upon its premise. For Science, the premise is always a sufficient condition, not necessary to be a necessary condition. And, this is the case in most cases in the science history.

Although the validity of the LRP process does not depend upon its premises, it will still be very beneficial to understand those premises. Is man, indeed, born free and equal? In order to research this question, we must first know what free is.

In the book The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Paul Edwards, Editor in Chief, Collier Macmillian Publishers, London, 1972), it wrote, "In the history of philosophical and social thought 'freedom' has a specific use as a moral and a social concept -- to refer either to circumstances which arise in the relations of man to man or to specific conditions of social life. Even when so restricted, important differences of usage are possible, and most of the political or philosophical argument about the meaning or the nature of freedom is concerned with the legitimacy or convenience of particular application of the term." (page 221, Volume III). I am summarizing those traditional views below.

  1. Negative freedom (freedom from ...) --- Freedom from any external force.
  2. Positive freedom (freedom to choice):
I personally do not see any difference between these two kinds of freedom above. That the number of choices available is an external circumstance. That the means to get what one chooses is also an external circumstance, the state of being have or have not. That is, the term "freedom" in a general sense cannot be defined precisely. While it cannot be defined precisely, how can there be a true freedom in the real world? So, we came up a new kind of freedom, the "freedom of ...," such as, the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship, ... etc.. This kind of "freedom of ..." is more narrowly defined, and hopefully, it could be achieved.

In my view, I do see two kinds of freedom.

Freedom from choosing is, often, indistinguishable from "lacking the freedom to choose" in the real world. However, their difference is distinguishable in the moral world. Furthermore, "freedom from choosing" has much better value than "freedom to choose" has. For example, there are five prizes.
  1. Prize one -- nothing
  2. Prize two -- a TV set
  3. Prize three -- a car
  4. Prize four -- a house
  5. Prize five -- a true love for marriage
The rule for choosing is that everyone can only choose one and with the following choices. By having the freedom to choose, we will get one of the prize one way or the other. Yet, do we get what we truly want? If I have the "freedom from choosing," then, I could have the right to take all prizes. Seemingly, this is not an Earthly freedom. Seemingly, only God has the freedom from choosing. God acts, and it is done, and it is perfect. Only God needs no "freedom to choose." If this is the case, there again are having two kinds of freedom.
  1. Earthly freedom -- freedom to choose
  2. Godly freedom -- freedom from choosing.
If the "freedom to choose" does not encompass the "freedom from choosing," then "freedom to choose" is not a complete freedom. If it is, then the "freedom to choose" can be voided at any time. Seemingly, we do not truly know what the "freedom" truly is. It is about the same as to "electric charge." We seemingly know a lot about "electric charge." Yet, what is electric charge? Anyway, we better get back to our topic. What is freedom? Although the above discussion has limited the term of freedom in the domain of human affair, I would like to view it from the biggest scope possible. So, I would like to define free or freedom as follow:

Definition: Free or Freedom is a state which is not affected by any external force.

Theorem one: A free particle must not loose its own energy.

Theorem two: A free particle must not affect the external world.

Obviously, the two theorems above became direct consequences of this definition. In the book The Divine Constitution (Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 91-90780), it wrote, "In physics, a free particle is defined as a particle that is not influenced by any external force; thus, it will not lose any of its own energy or essence. With this definition, does any free particle exist in this world? Most electrons are not free because they will be pushed or pulled by any nearby electrons and protons. Physicists tell us that a free particle can only exist in a potential well with an infinite depth. In other words, it can only exist in solitary confinement.
Surprise! Surprise! The total freedom can only come from the complete solitary confinement -- the stronger the confinement, the greater the freedom. A neutron, when it is confined in a nucleus, is closely to be a free particle, and it can survive for a long time, almost forever [otherwise, atoms will decay]. When it is expelled from this confined environment and enters into the open world, it will die or decay in a matter of one millionth of a second. Not only the freedom of a neutron but its survival are completely dependent upon the strength of the confining force. The stronger confining force acts on a neutron, the stable this neutron will be.
This notion of freedom seems ridiculous and absurd, but it can be understood very easily. If there were only one person in this world, he would have the right to do whatever he wants to do, when he wants to do it, to what he wants to do it and under circumstances of his own choosing. He has the absolute freedom because he is in a complete solitary confinement and in a state of absolute loneliness. If there are two persons in this world, then one person's freedom is reduced and checked by the freedom of the other person. The confining force of this 2nd person is much less than the force of the solitary confinement; therefore, there is much less freedom between either of them.
Every tyrant rules his subjects with his own hands. When we fight against any tyrant, we only fight against a single man. So, the confining force from any tyrant is very weak and often short-lived. On the other hand, democracy has a much stronger confining power. When we fight against democracy, we are fighting against the majority of population. Because democracy is a much stronger confining force, there is much more freedom in a democratic society.
This notion of freedom can also be demonstrated in mathematics. When we live in an one-dimensional world, that means that we are confined with only one-dimensional force, our maximum freedom can never go behind one degree of freedom. When we are confined by a two-dimensional force, our maximum freedom also has a chance to be two degrees of freedom. The more dimensions a confining force has, the more degrees of freedom we can possibly have.
We are confined by gravity force; so we have Earth as our nice home. We are confined by thermodynamics; so we are able to build cars and air conditioners. We are confined by Electrodynamics; so we are able to invent televisions, video machines and computers. ..." (page 83 - 84)

The above passage points out the essence of freedom,

It, in fact, points out the concept of "Asymptotic freedom." When a dog is tied up with a dog leash, the dog is seemingly not free. Yet, it has a great freedom inside the length of the leash. This kind of freedom is called Asymptotic freedom in physics. In fact, regardless of how we define the term of freedom, all Earthly freedom is asymptotic freedom. The stronger the Civil Laws there are, the greater the Civil Liberty we have. This, of course, is one of the major reasons that the premise of LRP has nothing to do with the conclusion of LRP.

Again, the same as to electric charge, we do know a lot about the LRP process,

Yet, what is a moral being? What is moral? In the book Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Immanuel Kant wrote, "[paraphrase] The moral worth of an action lies not in the purpose to be attained by it, but in the maxim in accordance with which it is decided upon. Whether or not I attain my ends does not depend on me alone, and my actions cannot be pronounced good or bad according to the effects they actually bring about. But I can be praised or blamed for my intentions, and I can, if I choose, make sure that the maxim or subjective principle of my action accords with the requirements of morality." Then, what is the maxim? "To do this I have only to ask myself the simple question whether I could will that the maxim should become a universal law, governing not merely this particular action of mine, but the actions of all agents similarly circumstanced. ... an action can be permissible for me only if it is permissible for anyone in my situation."

By accepting this definition of moral, a moral being must be a universal being. Then, its coming alive ought to depend upon to nothing. Yet, LRP claimed that LRP process is a consenting process to form a General Will, the Sovereign, the moral being, and an absolute right of not to consent must be a part of this LRP process. In order to resolve this issue, Locke wrote, "There is a common distinction of an express and a tacit consent, which will concern our present case. No body doubts but an express Consent, of any Man, entering into any Society, makes him a perfect Member of that Society, a Subject of that Government. The difficulty is, what ought to be look'd upon as a tacit Consent, and how far it binds, i.e. how far any one shall be looked on to have consented, and thereby submitted to any Government, where he has made no Expressions of it at all. And to this I say, that every Man, that hath any Possession, or Enjoyment, of any part of the Dominions of any Government, doth thereby give his tacit Consent, and is as far forth obliged to Obedience to the Laws of Government, during such Enjoyment,..." (page 257 - 258, Book two of Locke)

Locke again wrote, "But submitting to the Law of any Country; living quietly, and enjoying Priviledges and Protection under them, makes not a Man a Member of that Society: This is only a local Protection and Homage due to, and from all those who, not being in a state of War, come within the Territories belonging to any Government, to all parts whereof the force of its Law extends. But this no more makes a Man a Member of that Society, and perpetual Subject of that Commonwealth, than it would make a Man a Subject to another in whose Family he found it convenient to abide for some time; though, whilst he continued in it, he were obliged to comply with the Laws, and submit to the Government he found there. ... Nothing can make any Man so, but his actually entering into it by positive Engagement, and express Promise and Compact." (page 259 - 260, ibid)

These two passages are direct description of the reality today. However, the question is, is there any government (good, bad or else, but excluding the conquest) existing today not getting consents from its people? If we can find a single such a government which exists in peace today while without the consent of its people, then the LRP process is not universal, but a special particular species. Rousseau wrote, "This does not mean that the commands of the rulers cannot pass for general wills, so long as the Sovereign, being free to oppose them, offers no opposition. In such a case, universal silence is taken to imply the consent of the people." (page 32, The Social Contract). Are the tacit consent of Locke and the silent consent of Rousseau different species from the LRP consent? Is the LRP process universal or a special species? If it is universal, then we might not need to talk about the governability of China any more. It must be a subset of this LRP process. Perhaps, it is in a decaying state of this LRP process.

Rousseau wrote, "... generally, democratic government suits small States, aristocratic government those of middle size, and monarchy great ones. (page 68, The Social Contract)
"We found, on general grounds, that monarchy is suitable only for great States, and this is confirmed when we examine it in itself. (page 74, ibid)
"It may be added that there is no government so subject to civil wars and intestine agitations as democratic or popular government, because there is none which has so strong and continual a tendency to change to another form, or which demands more vigilance and courage for its maintenance as it is. Under such a constitution above all, the citizen should arm himself with strength and constancy, ..." (page 70, ibid)

Obviously, the Founding Fathers of America took Rousseau's words into their hearts and passed the 2nd Amendment: Right to keep arms, a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Yet, Rousseau's statement about that democratic government suits only small States is, seemingly, no longer correct.

Perhaps, the same as to the electric charge, while we live in and with the LRP process all our life, we do not truly know the essence of it.

II: Knowing the essence of Body Politic

Now, the Locke-Rousseau-Paine (LRP) process can be summarized as below:

  1. Initial State -- State of Nature
  2. Transformation one -- consenting to form a General Will
  3. Transformed State -- Body Politic with Civil Laws and Civil Liberty, the Sovereign, a moral being
  4. Transformation two -- decaying paths, usurpation to tyranny or Despotism
  5. Final State -- State of Nature
    Rousseau wrote, "So that the moment of the government usurps the Sovereignty, the social compact is broken, and all private citizens recover by right their natural liberty, ..." (page 87, The Social Contract)

A. Generalized LRP process

By returning to its initial state, this LRP process comes alive, forming a perpetual process. As I have shown above, the life force of this LRP process is so strong, it does not depend upon the contains of either the states or the transformation functions. Thus, the following should still be a LRP process, or a generalized LRP process. For the convenience, I will name it as LRP-a process.

By reading the books of LRP in detail, this LRP-a process should still be the LRP process. However, if anyone disagrees with this view, it is still clear that the LRP process is a special case of this LRP-a process. In fact, we can generalize this process even further as below.

  1. State A
  2. Transformation one -- T1 (A) ----> B
  3. State B
  4. Transformation two -- T2 (B) ----> A
  5. State A

B. Spin-half process and the yardstick

For the convenience, I will name the above process as LRP-g process. Obviously, this LRP-g process is no longer confined as a political process. It is now a mathematics system. That is, we are now able to study its general properties (which might go way beyond the scope of the political process) in terms of mathematics. Is there another natural process defined by or with this LRP-g process? Let us look at the following situation.

It is very easy to see that there is an absolute freedom in Case one. I am not affected by the mirror during my rotation. In Case two, there is no absolute freedom but a confined freedom (the asymptotic freedom). For many people, the Case two does not exist in the real world; it could only be a good story in the Alice's wonderland. Yet, for physicists, the Case two gives rise to a very important physical property, the quantum spin. The case one can be viewed as an ordinary spin which has an integer value (0, 1, 2, ...). The Case two is the spin of quantum particles, such as proton, neutron or electron, and their spin value is always a fraction, such as 1/2, 1/3, etc.. For a particle having a spin half (1/2), it must make two whole rotations (720 degrees) before it returns to its initial condition. In physics, the particle with spin half (1/2) has the following properties:

  1. It exists in two worlds, one ordinary world which we can see with our common sense and a hyper-space which houses the quantum uncertainty.
  2. Spin half particle must obey the Pauli's Excluding principle, that is, no spin half particle can occupy the same quantum state with another spin half particle. In political term, the Pauli's Excluding principle is called Individualism. In physics, the spin half (1/2) particle is called Fermion. The particle with integer spin is called Boson. Boson does not obey the Excluding principle.

With an analogy, the LRP process is very similar to the above description. Man also exists in two worlds, the State of Nature and the Body Politic. The civil laws which guarantees the individualism is similar to the Pauli's excluding principle. While every individual is similar to a fermion, there is a bosonic state. The Conjugal Compact between man and woman consists of a communion and right in one another's bodies and property. That is, two particles are occupying the same quantum state. In this case, man and woman become bosons. However, for the LRP-g process, it is no longer similar to the spin-half dynamics but is identical to it. With this conclusion, we get two insights right the way.

  1. The LRP process is a universal process.
  2. We can get a lot more insights about the LRP process by studying the spin-half dynamics.

Now, what is the electric charge? This question is no longer as a physics question only. By knowing the answer, we can get a lot of insights about the LRP process. In physics, there are only three fundamental cornerstones, time, space and the spin. All other variables, (such as, electric charge, mass charge, forces, fields, etc.,) are derived from these three. The unit for spin is called the Planck's constant, the h-bar, which is a limit for the following equation.

(delta Momentum) x (delta space) = h-bar
or
(delta energy) x (delta time) = h-bar

So, what is h-bar, the unit of spin? According to the above equations, it is just a rectangle, such as, one side (delta momentum) times the other side (delta space). And there are two kinds of rectangle. These rectangles have a finite and fixed size. The nature use this fixed size rectangle to map the universe. The faster it (or we) can map it, the more it can know about (or control) this universe. Yet, there is a speed limit in nature, the light speed, c. That is, the best, anyone (we or nature) can do, is h-bar times the light speed, c * h-bar.

Again, what is the electric charge? Would you be surprised that electric charge is simply the square root of c * h-bar? The square root of a rectangle is a yardstick. The electric charge is one of the yardsticks that nature uses to control this universe. As I have shown above, the LRP is also a spin-half process, then it consists of the followings:

For the LRP process, we do have Civil Law as its product. And, the civil law is the yardstick for controlling the Body Politic. With electric charge, we do enjoy many good things for life, such as, TV, computer, etc.. With Civil Law, we enjoy many things, such as civil rights, which are more important than any material things.

III. The Political Theory of China

As the LRP process is identical to the spin-half dynamics, we are greatly encouraged to use physics theory as a guide in studying the political theory. In physics, there are four kinds of charge, the measuring yardsticks.

I would like to make some wild analogies first. The weak charge is very weak and is a destructive charge. It is the cause for many atoms to break up. I would like to say that the criminals in our society is the weak charge of the Body Politic. The mass charge in nature is very weak, yet constructive, and it is universal. I would like to compare it with the NGO which is the mass charge of the Body Politic. Of course, these are just my wild guesses, as they are beyond the scope of this paper. The sole purpose of this paper is to discuss the Governability of China. Of course, it took quite a bit efforts to reach this point finally.

A. Two novels

By making the two wild guesses above, the Chinese political system must be as either an electric charge-like system (the LRP) or a strong charge-like system. Of course, I cannot make any kind of guess here. We must discover it from the bottom up. I must begin with by talking about two Chinese novels.

A: The story of The Westward Journey happened around 640 a.d.. The Tang emperor wanted to import Buddhism to China. He selected a monk 陳 玄 莊 (as Tang monk in the story) and sent him to India to learn Buddhism and to bring the canons of Buddhism back to China. It took about 16 years for the Tang monk to complete this assignment. The Emperor gave Tang monk a white horse for his journey. Besides this white horse, Tang monk traveled alone according to the history. Yet, Tang monk traveled with four disciples in the novel. Although the novel is based on this historical event, its objective is to describe the political-social theory of China. Although there are hundreds characters in the novel, only five of them form the backbone of the book.

  1. 唐 僧 (Tang Monk) -- he was the one who gets the assignment to bring Buddhism canons back to China. He was a common human without any heavenly magic power. All that he had was the moral energy which was unable to overcome any kind of physical difficulty. Yet, good luck for him, he recruited four disciples on the way. These four disciples were all having some heavenly magic powers, and they together overcame all difficulties during the journey. However, the good lucks of Tang monk did not come from chance, they were all pre-arranged by Buddha himself. After the completion of the assignment, Tang monk was ordained as a new Buddha.

  2. 孫 悟 空 (the Monkey) -- This monkey was born by a stone. After absorbing the essence of the universe over millions of years, a stone received a spirit of life. Slowly, it turned into a stone monkey. Finally, this stone monkey came alive. He, then, went to a school and learned some heavenly magic, the 72 transformations. He also found a yardstick ( 如 意 金 箍 棒 ) in the bottom of the ocean. He could make this yardstick long, and it reached Heaven. He could make it fat, and it covered the Earth. He could make it thin, and it became thinner than a hair. He could make it short, and it became shorter than a sand. He used this yardstick as his weapon during any kind of battle.

    Carrying this magic yardstick as weapon and with his learned magic (the 72 transformations), Monkey went up to Heaven. He demanded the highest Title in Heaven from the Emperor of Heaven. As his request was not met, he put up a big fight in Heaven, and there was no one who was able to control him. Finally, the Emperor of Heaven gave him a title as "horse keeper." Without knowing any better, the Monkey was very happy and very proud of his new title.

    One day, Monkey went into a peach orchard. He could not resist the attraction of those beautiful reddish peaches, and he stole two and ate them. This was very, very serious offense, and the Monkey must be punished. This time, there was no compromise. As still no one was able to control him in Heaven, the Monkey was finally arrested by Buddha himself. Buddha placed the Monkey under his five fingers, and these five fingers transformed into five big mountains. The Monkey was placed under these five mountains for five hundred years.

    When the Tang monk started his westward journey, the 觀 音 (Bodhisattva, a disciple of Buddha) went to see the Tang monk in disguise and gave him three headbands and showed him the ways of using them. He also told the Tang monk about the four disciples who were waiting for him to help him to accomplish his assignment at different locations on his westward path.

    Monkey was the first one that Tang monk met on his way. After placing the headband ( 緊 箍 圈 ) on Monkey, Tang monk let the Monkey get out of the Five Finger mountain. Yet, if Monkey tried to act as he did before, Tang monk could sing the headband song ( 緊 箍 咒 ) , and the headband would sink into the skin of Monkey's head. The Monkey would fall onto the ground right the way and lose all his magic powers. Although the magic power of Monkey was great, he must obey the order of Tang monk.

    During the entire journey, Monkey alone defeated all evil forces and overcame all physical difficulties. After the completion of the assignment, Monkey was ordained as a new Buddha, and his headband came off at that moment.

  3. 豬 八 戒 (The Pig) -- Pig was a General in the Court of Heaven. One day, he sexually flirted the Moon goddess. He was banished from Heaven. On his way of rebirth on earth, he went into the womb of a pig, and he became a pig-man. During the journey, he carried the luggage. Yet, the Pig got the entire group in trouble many times as he always fell into the traps which were set by the evil forces of disguising themselves as beautiful girls. For every this kind of occasion, the Pig must be rescued by Monkey. And, the journey was always delayed. Yet, the Pig was not a sex predator. He was simply unable to resist the slightest sexual flirtation.

  4. 白 馬 (the White horse) -- The White horse was the son of Dragon king in the ocean. One day, he disobeyed his father and burnt the dragon palace. He was banished from Heaven. On his way of coming to Earth, he swallowed the white horse of Tang monk, and he himself was transformed into that white horse. During the entire journey, he carried the Tang monk or the luggage.

  5. 沙 悟 淨 (the Sha monk) -- The Sha monk was a General of the Court of Heaven. One day, he was carelessly broken a very valuable vase. He was banished from Heaven. He became a watery creature before he was taking in by the Tang monk as one of the disciple. He lived in a kind of water which nothing can float. While the Monkey and the Pig can cross over that water as they both having the magic power, yet, their magic powers are unable to lift the human body (the earthly mass). Thus, only Sha monk could help the Tang monk to get cross that water. During the entire remaining journey, his job was taking care of the White horse, cleaning the horse dung.

On the surface, this novel (The Westward Journey) is about a Buddhism story. But, it did not try to convey a single Buddhism teaching. It tries to convey the followings:

B: The story of The List of Ordained gods happened around 1130 b.c.. It is the story about the falling of (Shang) dynasty and the rising of the (Chou) dynasty. That is, this story must center around the following issues:

Although this book has 100 chapters, I will talk about only four scenes which will briefly answer the above issues. However, I must explain some terminologies first.

  1. Scene one: Chapter one
  2. Scene two: Chapter 12 to 14
  3. Scene three: Chapter 82 -- 三 教 大 會 萬 仙 陣 (The battle of ten thousand immortals among three schools).

  4. Scene four: Chapter 99 - 100.
This novel gives a precise description about the Chinese theology. Please read the article Confucianism -- as a religion for details. It also answered the three vital questions on government.

I, however, will summarize it briefly below.

  1. The right to govern is solely depend upon 天 命 (God's command) in terms of 氣 數 (Chi-Shu). As powerful as the goddess 女 媧 was, she was unable to alter it with her infinite magic power directly.
  2. The Court of Heaven is actively governing the Earthly dynasty. The first business of an Earthly dynasty is to accept the officials of Court of Heaven.
  3. The only way to exhaust Emperor Zho's Chi-Shu was turning him into a tyrant. Yet, the word tyrant here is different from Locke's definition, "... exercising power beyond right." It is also different from Rousseau's definition, "..., who governs violently and without regard for justice and law." (page 88, The Social Contract). The word tyrant in Chinese means that governing without regard for the livelihood of the people and without regard for God's command.

B. The Canons of Chinese Political Theory

The two stories above are just novels. What do Chinese canons describe the Chinese political theory?

  1. The source of the legitimate governing power.

    These passages give two clear meanings:
  2. The criteria of examining the legitimacy of a governing power.

    Thus, there are two very clear criteria to examine the legitimacy of a governing power.

  3. The way to remove a governing power which is no longer legitimate.

    商 書 (Book of History on Shang dynasty), it wrote, " 非 台 小 子 , 敢 行 稱 亂 。 有 夏 多 罪 , 「 天 」 命 殛 之 。 " (Not the meek man as I having the courage to rebel, the Sha dynasty made many crimes against people, and God commands me to overthrow it.)

    That is, the right of revolution is the divine right of Chinese people. It has been exercised 26 times during the past five thousand years.

Now, Chinese political theory is very clear as bellow:

Chinese Political Theory
Source of right to govern The structure of government The conveyance of governing power
God's command,
entrusting in one person or a group of persons
Court of Heaven and Court of Earthly government People, the eyes and the ears of God

Obviously, the political structure above does not have:

C. The differences between China and the West

The goal of science is to describe nature. Science has made great progress in describing nature only because it has put aside all attempts to answer the greater problem of God who cannot be clearly defined in terms of science. Thus, the LRP process can be clearly defined in terms of science. Yet, the Chinese theory which contains God as a variable cannot be truly defined in science. That is, we might not be able to calculate the stability of the Chinese system. Then, we don't truly know what that system is really about, although we have been mumbo jumbo about it for a long time now. Fortunately, I am able to show its dynamics in terms of science. However, before doing that, let us look at the differences between the Western system and the Chinese theory first.

  1. God's will and God's command

    In China, 天 命 (God's command), God commands, and it is done, and it is absolute and perfect. The word will () has two radicals, (a scholar) and (heart). When a man wills, he is hoping or wishing to achieve something; yet, there is a big chance that he could fail. That is, God can never Will. God commands, and it is done; it is absolute and perfect. Only man wills. No amount of General Will of man can be of anything in comparing to God's command.

  2. The Court of Heaven and the Civil Religion

    In the book Rights of man, Paine wrote, "..., if every one is left to judge of its own religion, there is no such thing as a religion that is wrong; but if they are to judge of each others religion, there is no such thing as a religion that is right;... (page 75)
    "Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly-marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion reassumes its original benignity." (page 77, ibid)
    Rousseau wrote, "Wherever theological intolerance is admitted, it must inevitably have some civil effect, and as soon as it has such an effect, the Sovereign is no longer Sovereign even in the temporal sphere:..." (Page 136, The Social Contract).

    As the Western God is a jealous and intolerant God, the Western God was excluded from the LRP process. On the contrary, as the Chinese God is an absolute - absolute monotheism, He has no need for jealousy nor for intolerance. No one, absolutely no one, has any chance to challenge His authority. Although man is a God-like creature, man can never challenge God's authority. Yet, man has three ways to partake God's blessing.

    Note: Please read the article Chinese culture and the World Security for details, at http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/cwr011.htm

  3. Majority rule and the right of a single commoner

    As the Body Politic is the embodiment of the General Will, the majority must rule. Locke wrote, "..., and make one Body Politick, wherein the Majority have a Right to act and conclude the rest. ... , with a Power to Act as one Body, which is only by the will and determination of the majority." (page 238, Book two, Locke)
    "For where the majority cannot conclude the rest, there they cannot act as one Body, and consequently will be immediately dissolved again." (page 240, ibid)

    For the LRP process, as soon as the entering into the Social Contract, one has given the consent for all acts which are done by the Sovereign. Rousseau gave a very good explanation on this. Rousseau wrote, "Apart from this primitive contract, the vote of the majority always binds all the rest. This follows from the contract itself. But it is asked how a man can be both free and forced to conform to wills that are not his own. How are the opponents at once free and subject to laws they have not agreed to?
    I retort that the question is wrongly put. The citizen gives his consent to all the laws, including those which are passed in spite of his opposition, and even those which punish him when he dares to break any of them. The constant will of all the members of the State is the general will; by virtue of it they are citizens and free. When in the popular assembly a law is proposed, what the people is asked is not exactly whether it approves or rejects the proposal, but whether it is in conformity with the general will, which is their will. Each man, in giving his vote, states his opinion on that point; and the general will is found by counting votes. When therefore the opinion that is contrary to my own prevails, this proves neither more nor less than I was mistaken, and that what I thought to be the general will was not so. If my particular opinion had carried the day I should have achieved the opposite of what was my will; and it is in that case that I should not have been free." (page 106 - 107, The Social Contract)

    On the contrary, the Politic of China is not a business of a General Will, but a business of God. How can the God allow a single commoner to suffer under any law? In the LRP system, this kind of problem is dealt with the prerogative power. In China, no one will suffer under (Lee), the law of God. Yet, (Fa), the law of man, as the necessary evil, can often mistake the innocent as the guilty. Locke wrote, "..., War is made upon the Sufferers, who having no appeal on Earth to right them, they are left to the only remedy in such Cases, an appeal to Heaven. ... Of that I my self can only be Judge in my own Conscience, as I will answer it at the great Day, to the Supreme Judge of all Men." (page 180 - 181, Book two of Locke)

    As God is the true Governor of Chinese Politic, every Chinese, however meek and lowly, can indeed appeal to God (through His appointee) on any injustice which is done upon him. In fact, there are two justice systems in China. One, the justice of (law of man) which is handled by the court. Two, the justice of (law of God) which can be handled only by 天 子 (Son of God, the Emperor). Although everyone is equal in front of , as 王 子 犯 法 , 與 庶 民 同 罪 。 (Violating the Fa (law of man) by a prince, he will be punished the same as the commoner who did the same crime), the Emperor can rule the case not a crime if that case is in accordance with the (the law of God). Yet, this is not a pardon. This is called a 喊 冤 (Yelling for innocence) system. A beggar on the street from a remote part of China can appeal (no one can stop him) in front of Emperor to state his case. Often, such a beggar can bring down the governor of a province or even the Prime Minister. This system still exists in China today. It is called 上 訪 (visiting the Supreme). This system is outside the law of Court system. The right of every individual is thus guaranteed.

    With such a 喊 冤 system in place, there is no need for an expressed Bill of Right on Free Speech. In fact, one should not speak about anything beyond his knowledge. Furthermore, Confucius said, " 不 在 其 位 , 不 謀 其 政 。 " (Not in that department, do not meddle the business of that department). Man should not speak about anything which is not of his own business, especially the governing of China is not a business of man but a business of God. The so-called political dissenters in China have done the crimes of ignorance, of against people and of against God. If they are not a shame for the people, the Government cannot truly punish them.

  4. The Civil Law and (Lee), (Li) and (Fa)

    The Civil Law is clearly defined as the product of the General Will to promote the good for the public in the framework of LRP process. For the etymological meanings of and , please read the article Chinese Culture and the World Security. The word has two radicals, (jade) and (unit of mile or a village) which again has two radicals (grain field) and (earth or dust). That is, the original meaning of is the pattern of field on earth, and the word means the nature pattern in the jade, which also means the law of nature or the law of God. Today, it also means reason.

    For the LRP process, the civil law is the only yardstick. Yet, there are two Courts in China, the Court of Heaven and the Court of Earth. Chinese society is governed by two laws, law of God (Lee) and the law of Earthly Emperor (Fa). However, these two laws do not work independently or separately. They are linked or unified with a unique entity, the (Li) which is not ethics nor morality. It is a social protocol.

    In the book 資 治 通 鑑 (The Encyclopedia of Governing in terms of History), written around 1060 a.d. with over 9.2 million words, it wrote, " 夫 以 四 海 之 廣 , 兆 民 之 眾 , 受 制 於 一 人 , 雖 有 絕 倫 之 力 , 高 世 之 智 , … , 豈 非 以 「 禮 」 為 之 紀 綱 哉 。 (Without the framework of (Li), how can one man [Emperor], even with the superman physical strength and even with a supreme wisdom, rule over billions of people and millions square miles of territory?)

    Locke wrote, "... an Usurper can never have Right on his side, it being, no Usurpation but where one is got into the Possession of what another has Right to." (page 319, Book two of Locke)
    Paine wrote, "..., the usurpation cannot alter the right of things." (page 157, Rights of Man)
    Confucius said, " … 為 政 , … , 必 也 「 正 名 」 乎 。 (... for governing, ..., the first is to Right the Title.) (Book 13, verse 3, the Analects)
    Rousseau wrote, "The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty. ... that force does not create right, and that we are obliged to obey only legitimate powers." (page 16 - 17, The Social Contract)

    On this point, the East and the West share the same view. Without the Right Title, Emperor as a single man can never govern the nation.

    With the political dynamics as above, three alliances are formed.
    1. Emperor - people alliance -- people gives the positive acknowledgement of Emperor's Right Title. Emperor provides the protection to every single individual.
    2. Emperor - bureaucrat alliance -- Emperor delegates the governing power to bureaucrat.
    3. People - bureaucrat alliance -- if Emperor's Right Title is no longer legitimate, people together with bureaucrat to overthrow the emperor. In China's five thousand year history, this happened 26 times.
    These three alliances are forming a looped ring. The Right Title is the basis of . This looped alliance ring is the cornerstone of .

    Furthermore, the Western Civil Law is based on the concept of free will which is a product of Western morality. That is, every free man can choose to obey or to disobey a law. The concept of Western morality is about "ought to be." That is, "what ought to be" is different from "what it is." In terms of Quantum Physics, "ought to be" is a quantum possibility and "it is" is a quantum reality. In short, the Western morality is a very weak confining force.

    The Chinese morality is completely different. In the book The Divine Constitution (Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 91-90780), it wrote, "Furthermore, the notion of soul can solve another major issue -- the moral truth. It is very obvious that justice cannot always prevail on earth. Then, is there moral truth and justice? With a notion of immortal soul, any earthly unjust can be corrected in the after life, and the moral truths will be upheld." (page 156). That is, the Chinese morality is not "ought to be" but is "must be," 善 有 善 報 , 惡 有 惡 報 , 不 是 不 報 , 時 候 未 到 。 " (Good deed will definitely receive blessing, evil deed will definitely receive punishment. If it is not so, it is just its time not here yet. It will eventually come.) With this Chinese morality, the Civil Law of China consists of three parts:

D. The event horizon and the looping string system

There are many more differences between the Chinese Politic and the LRP process. The four above are the major ones. Yet, by knowing all these differences, it does not help us to know how to calculate the stability of the Chinese system, while the stability of the LRP system can be easily calculated as it is a well-defined spin-half system.

Chinese Political Theory
Source of right to govern The structure of government The conveyance of governing power
God's command,
entrusting in one person or a group of persons
Court of Heaven and Court of Earthly government People, the eyes and the ears of God

In order to transform the above theory into a calculable dynamics, we must first to resolve the issue of God. How to define God in terms of science?

We might never be able to define God in terms of science precisely. Yet, we might be able to define a region of God in terms of science. If there is a region in the universe which is beyond the human ability to investigate scientifically, then it is a region of God. In terms of science, we can only investigate a causal universe. If there is an event horizon for this causal universe, then the region beyond the event horizon can never be investigate scientifically, and it could be the region of God. Is there an event horizon?

  1. What was before Big Bang? Some said that this question does not make sense. They said that Big Bang did not come in into time but time came in with the Big Bang. As the term of before is defined by time, there is no before before Big Bang. Well, they have said (I, of course, disagree with it), I will take it. That is, no event horizon before Big Bang.
  2. Can Big Bang itself produce an event horizon? This is not a too difficult question. A zillionth second after the Big Bang, the size of the universe was about the same size as a baseball, and it contained some information, a, b, ..., m, ..., n. If we (today on Earth) can detect all those original information, a, b, ..., m, ...n, then it might not have an event horizon. If Big Bang has created something new during its life, it will be a different story for us. Forty years ago, we discovered the microwave background which is the remnant of the Big Bang. Today, we are searching for the seeds of Galaxies in that microwave background. If we are successful on this, then 99.9999...% of information on Big Bang will be known by us today on earth. Then, the chance of having an event horizon after Big Bang is not good from this standpoint.
  3. While the process of Big Bang is of no use to our quest, we might find a rescue from some other processes. The followings are three fish tanks. Each tank is divided into three parts by two dividers, and they are filled with three watery colored inks. Obviously, these three tanks are easily distinguished. When a process of removing the dividers took place, those three tanks could no longer be distinguished after a while, days or months. We can no longer find out the original state after this process. That is, this process of removing the dividers has created an event horizon.

    In fact, there is another process which can also create an event horizon. When we elongate these tanks into long tubes and after a process of joining the ends, these three tubes again become indistinguishable. There is another event horizon. In fact, this looping process (transforming a line-string into a loop-string) is the fundamental process of Prequark dynamics which is the basis for forming quarks, the rock bottom building blocks of this physical universe. This looping string creates a permanent confinement. Because of this permanent confinement, no external or internal force can destroy the building blocks of this universe. Without this permanent confinement, this universe would have fallen apart long ago. In fact, this permanent confinement is the basis for Strong Force in physics.

Now, we have resolved two issues.

Is Chinese Political system,

( 天 道 God's command, Government, People 人 心 )
a looping system? If it is, then this system is 100 times stabler than the spin-half process according to the force ratios listed above.

With this Chinese political system, we now have introduced a political science which is isomorphic to the science of physics. This could be a good beginning for a Theory of Everything (TOE). Their comparisons can be as follow:

  1. Spin one (or integer) system -- no excluding principle, no confinement.
  2. Spin-half (1/2) system -- with excluding principle, with strong confinement
  3. Looping-string (with event horizon) system -- permanent confinement

IV. The real Politic

While the voting and the election of Western style were not necessary parts of the looping-string of Chinese political system, they are not in any contradiction with it. Slowly, Chinese will adapt some voting and election systems in their political structure. Yet, by so adaptation, it will not alter the foundation of the looping string system.

America's political system follows almost step by step with the LRP process with only a very few exceptions. Although the LRP system is a very stable spin-half system, the strength of America does not come from it completely. America's strength is coming more from the spirit of American's patriotism which forms a permanent confinement, that is, no external force can break it. This permanent confinement is always a result of a looping-string-like system.

Today, many people view that election is the only Hall Mark of Western system. Yet, neither Locke nor Paine discussed voting and election in their treatises. Rousseau had many reservations on them. Rousseau wrote, "How can a blind multitude, which often does not know what it wills, because it rarely knows what is good for it, carry out for itself so great and difficult an enterprise as a system of legislation? Of itself the people will always the good, but of itself it by no means always sees it. The general will is always in the right, but the judgment which guides it is not always enlightened. ... The individuals see the good they reject; the public wills the good it does not see. All stand equally in need of guidance. The former must be compelled to bring their wills into conformity with their reason; the latter must be taught to know what it wills." (page 33 - 34, The Social Contract).
"Men always love what is good or what they find good; it is in judging what is good that they go wrong." (page 125, ibid)

In the book The Clash of Civilizations ..., Dr. Huntington wrote, "The first fairly contested elections in almost every former Soviet and former Yugoslav republic were won by political leaders appealing to nationalist sentiments and promising vigorous action to defend their nationality against other ethnic groups. Electoral competition encourages nationalist appeals and thus promotes the intensification of fault line conflicts into fault line wars. When, in Bogdan Denitch's phrase, 'ethnos becomes demos,' the initial result is polemos or war." (page 262)

Rousseau wrote, "It is therefore essential, if the general will is to be able to express itself, that there should be no partial society within the State, and that each citizen should think only his own thoughts: which was indeed the sublime and unique system established by the great Lycurgus. But if there are partial societies, it is best to have as many as possible and to prevent them from being unequal, as was done by Solon, Numa and Servius. These precautions are the only ones that can guarantee that the general will shall be always enlightened, and that the people shall in no way deceive itself." (page 35, The Social Contract)

The successes of America and of the Europe political systems do not prove that the insights of Rousseau were wrong. If we equate election to democracy, we are deceiving ourselves. Fortunately, election is not a cornerstone of LRP system. Yet, election is a good political mechanism for a system if that political system already has a very stable framework.

Epilogue

I have found two passages from Paine most enlightening. Paine wrote, "Ignorance of a peculiar nature: once dispelled, and it is impossible to re-establish it. It is not originally a thing of itself, but is only the absence of knowledge; and though man may be kept ignorant, he cannot be made ignorant." (page 121, Rights of Man)

Again, in his Introduction to The Common Sense, Paine wrote, "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason." (page 3)