道歉啟事

為前post 所引起的煩擾，鄭重向siusinsin 道歉，前post 已刪。

《羅爾斯與剝削》

到最後都只停留在理論層次，若果沒有人同意。當然如果有人想再知d 咩關於以下篇摘文，歡迎留言。或者會持續的做這方面的事情。頭痛。係咁。

Understanding Society: Rawls and Exploitation

The key question about whether exploitation is just by Rawls's principles, then, is whether the two principles permit private ownership of the means of production and whether they permit a generalized system of wage labor in which the labor time of the worker is purchased on the basis of a wage set by a competitive labor market. If so, then Marx would conclude that exploitation is compatible with the principles of justice; if not, then we have a basis for thinking that the two principles are powerful enough to rule out exploitation. 

Rawls is explicit in holding that laissez-faire capitalism is unjust. This is because of the difference principle. The difference principle mandates that the condition of the worker should be better than it would be without this system of capital and labor, which may entail transfer of wealth through taxation to bring the worker’s welfare up to that standard. Laissez-faire capitalism is not just, according to the two principles because it lacks fiscal and legislative means for transferring wealth to improve the condition of the least-well-off (see the discussion of a property-owning democracy in an earlier post). But if just institutions permit ownership of capital and generalized wage labor, then Marx would still regard this as a system of exploitation and surplus extraction. 

So the key question is whether the two principles of justice permit private property in the means of production and a system of wage labor. There are two plausible approaches we can take on this question, leading to different results.

The answer, it would appear, does not depend on the second principle of justice (the difference principle) but rather the first principle of justice (the liberty principle). This is Wilkerson's central point: does the liberty principle include protection of economic rights, including the right to own the means of production and the right to buy and sell labor power?

[...]

But perhaps the liberty principle doesn't in fact support these economic rights after all. This is Wilkerson's argument, and it is the basis for his claim that Rawls is more radical than we thought. And it is the view that Sam Freeman explores in greater depth in his book Rawls. In a nutshell, Freeman gives an extensive argument for concluding that Rawls does not include these economic rights under the liberty principle (the right to own and accumulate capital and the right to buy and sell labor time). Here is Freeman's position:

Then again, Rawls resembles Mill in holding that freedom of occupation and choice of careers are protected as a basic freedom of the person, but that neither freedom of the person nor any other basic liberty includes other economic rights prized by classical liberals, such as freedom of trade and economic contract. Rawls says that freedom of the person includes having a right to hold and enjoy personal property. He includes here control over one's living space and a right to enjoy it without interference by the State or others. The reason for this right to personal property is that, without control over personal possessions and quiet enjoyment of one's own living space, many of the basic liberties cannot be enjoyed or exercised. (Imagine the effects on your behavior of the high likelihood of unknowing but constant surveillance.) Moreover, having control over personal property is a condition for pursuing most worthwhile ways of life. But the right to personal property does not include a right to its unlimited accumulation. Similarly, Rawls says the first principle does not protect the capitalist freedom to privately own and control the means of production, or conversely the socialist freedom to equally participate in the control of the means of production (TJ, 54 rev.; PL, 338; JF, 114). (Kindle Locations 1239-1248).

Unlike John Locke, then, John Rawls does not accept the fundamental moral rights that give rise to capitalism as basic rights of liberty. If these rights are to be created within a just society, they must be governed by the difference principle. Or in more contemporary terms: Rawls and Nozick part ways on liberties even more fundamentally than they do on distributive justice (Anarchy, State, and Utopia).

If we accept Freeman's argument (and Wilkinson's) -- and I am inclined to -- then the answer to the question posed above is resolved. The two principles of justice are not apriori committed to the justice of the basic institutions of capitalism; and therefore Rawls's system is not forced to judge that exploitation is just. Or more affirmatively: exploitation is unjust.

第一人

因為是根據卡謬小說改編才進場看《第一人》。當然，那時候的反應是「點解咁樣？」整套戲幾乎沒有什麼發展可言，越是期待有什麼發展，就越失望。

不過，後來想也許這是真實的。當然卡謬寫第一人是以自傳式的角度出發。但我不禁懷疑有些朋友看到這片或許真會落淚。故事主角Cormery 回到阿爾及利亞時在大學裡給了一場演說，是說法國與當地人共存。之後，近距離經歷恐怖襲擊，嘗試救救同學的兒子出獄，但其兒子坦言不願被救，之後被處死，然後最後向當地再發表一次電台講話。如果單從政治、矛盾這角度來看，Cormery 做了一些事，但一些也沒有改變到，至少不是在電影裡看到。雖然Cormery 是有名的作家，但不代表能改變到什麼。看到男主角也自然有種雖然衣著光鮮，但卻我覺得無力。

一切種族衝突的戲在這個年頭都是不合事宜的。若然政治冷感在城市是事實，那麼所謂的衝突也只是一部分人的作為，並不代表整體，並不有代表性指向性。但是，這種無力不限於所謂的族群衝突或種族衝突。不需要假裝樂觀，能夠持續熱血的不是所有人。

春嬌與志明

關於影評的二三事我想先說了。一是沒有特別留意影評，工作後情況更差。《春嬌與志明》在面書上反應不錯，但卻不見到評語。究竟大家都只是因為那些gags 嗎，還是那些透出來滲出來的地道香港情懷？二是最近不想太過隨便的寫「影評」。可能沒有什麼時間去想，又或者根本沒有看到什麼。也覺得隨意的寫一兩點也只是可有可無。

不過，既然有人問到，也就寫寫。

撇開本地對內地（北京）這個資料豐富的題目，只想講春嬌與志明這兩個人。其實睇過的不用我再講。余春嬌愛張志明，儘管張志明很仆街，及只是一個小朋友。而張志明也愛余春嬌，儘管也喜歡尚優優。影片就是這種離合情節。

余春嬌在意識到自己變成張志明時明白了自己的愛未曾放下。春嬌想放下甚至擺脫志明，但其實她已經受志明影響太深，志明已是她一部份。這到底就是愛還是愛的象徵？有老師說過，在分手後再擁抱另一個情人，總會感覺到新舊情人的分別。而我卻發現後來在跟別人對話中試圖尋找與c 對話的模式，甚或是用c 的說話方式跟別人說話。而當年是跟c 睇《志明與春嬌》。

相反，張志明的意會也許比較含糊不清，在最後一刻還需要別人講佢仆街才鼓起勇氣去追。現在想來，這可能是一般香港男人的做法？寫到這裡，忽然覺得這可能是港男港女的影片。張志明在影片最後做了的是翻拍了那個MV，算是小感動，然後說了幾句「我想學......」。當時覺得有點突兀，後來想，既然張志明是中四後再沒有長大，這些不太符合情境的對白也其實很張志明－－他真的要學，甚至是說話。

分開再係埋一齊。同時是小孩長大的故事。可能最深刻的還是變成張志明那一段，雖然有香港電影那種講白左，不過總算一個click位。

由於又是一篇隨便「影評」，不得不提尚優優的空姐造型很棒，還有她跟張志明分手一段的文化氣息。這一部分的張志明我留下了，其他的都給她。總覺得這個位很好。其實床吧那段音樂也顯出北京的文化氣息，在香港對應大概只能是老蘭了吧。

彭浩翔的戲還是好笑，不過我那場觀眾一開始並沒有笑。第一個意外不會笑，但第二個能笑了吧。雖說Eason 說香港幽默感需要多一些，但也不敢武斷，只作紀錄。又，彭浩翔這戲有沒有大道理？我想頂多就是中港比較吧，深一點的不如說是那種日常會發生的愛情吧。

我一直不斷的持續高歌。

「私はずっと唄っている。」一句的音樂做得極好，那種配合會讓人很感動。是的，可以說是一些慣常的做法，舖墊爆發，但最讓我感到驚訝是那個拉長的節奏，感覺很有力。是的，我一直不斷的持續高歌，有夢想的人就該如此。

在網上抄回來的歌詞:

敬啟者 

　你今天應該就算是藏了一手，眼睛卻是代之捕捉了什麼似的
兀自琢磨澄淨，並擁有了新的力量吧。如此確信是理所當然的。
因為，唉！你說了你已經不再依賴天真而選了一條不歸路。
而我，將不再嘆息，因為你美麗的決斷。 

　長大後的我們總需要答案，對不對？
因「害怕」而猶豫的瞬間，生命就將燃燒殆盡。 

　我總在祈禱。你的顏色不管再怎麼混濁都不會改變。
想傳達的訊息即便在遙遙遠方失去方向，都請不要遺忘。 

　我一直不斷的持續高歌。 

　以前，明明總感覺季節逝去的速度要再慢一點的，
最近，卻好像越來越快。該做的事堆積如山。 

　長大後的我們總想馬上就得到答案對不對。
就連途中稍事猶豫的瞬間，生命都會萌芽。 

　我總不斷希望，你的夢想不管世界多麼混濁都不毀損。
若你照著希望往前邁進卻走錯方向，就請靜靜憶起。

附註： 

儘管身肩重擔都不曾崩潰，是因為直至今日我都相信你還活著，
一點都不曾懷疑的關係。（僅因為微不足道的一些理由）請多保重…。