My life is like walking on thin ice

Chapter 519: The board hits you, it hurts

All in all, what does this sudden slavery case mean to the court in Chang'an?
At first glance, it seemed to be just an unexpected incident, but with the intentional or unintentional promotion of unknown forces, it fermented into an anti-corruption storm that swept the Han officialdom.

To put it more bluntly, an originally ordinary and common non-official complaint, under the deliberate promotion of Emperor Liu Rong, fermented into a major debate covering the entire country.

The topic of the debate is: Should officials engage in corruption?
What is the bottom line of the Han Dynasty’s moral requirements for officials?
Is it like Emperor Taizong Xiaowen who gave money to corrupt officials to make them feel ashamed?
Or will we just listen, let it go, and let it be as we have done in the past years - allowing officials all over the world to take advantage of it, eating their fill and having greasy mouths, while doing nothing?
besides;

Are there any targeted restrictions on the economy of officials, as well as the interest relations between officials and between officials and the powerful?

For example: Are officials not allowed to protect each other?

Or, is it that officials are not allowed to have dealings with the powerful, or that officials are not allowed to accept bribes from "low-class people", that is, businessmen?

What's more - does it exist, or can it be possible to introduce a new restriction that prohibits officials from accepting bribes from specific groups of people for certain special things, given the current prevalence of bribery in the Han Dynasty?

This topic is both broad and profound.

But it is difficult to draw a clear conclusion.

Because in the history of human development, right and wrong are never achieved overnight.

For example, the system of burying people alive with the dead - it was not that from the beginning, wives, children, the elderly, and servants were buried alive with the dead, but overnight it became prohibited.

It's about improving and developing little by little.

From the initial "collective burial according to household registration", it developed to not burying children alive with the deceased, and then to not burying the wife alive with the deceased...

In the end, the only ones buried alive were slaves and concubines who were essentially no different from slaves.

As Chinese civilization officially entered the feudal society from the slave society, the last remnant of the system of burying people alive with the dead almost disappeared.

This is also the epitome of the complete process of the formation of every "concept of right and wrong" in the history of human civilization.

The same is true for corruption and bribery.

——As for bribery, it is not the first time in Chinese civilization that everyone wanted to be like Heshen and then overnight everyone became incorruptible officials with clean hands.

This also has a development process.

At the beginning, the bureaucratic group did instinctively use the convenience of their position to pursue their own personal interests.

As time goes by, people gradually realize that officials' pursuit of personal gain is a serious harm to the entire society and to the collective.

But the vested interest groups have already formed, and the unstoppable trend is unstoppable.

How to do it?

If you can't brake suddenly, you can only fight for it bit by bit.

The way to fight for it is to take the first step from the initial helplessness: initiative.

- Accept the existence of corruption and bribery, do not deny the legitimacy of this phenomenon, but from a moral perspective, encourage officials to engage in less corruption and bribery as possible, and consider collective interests more often.

Gradually, more and more officials wanted to pursue the moral and spiritual gains of being incorruptible, and the initiative was further transformed into a consensus and a contempt chain of universal social values.

For example: People all over the world unanimously agree that corruption is immoral and corrupt officials should be despised.

But this stage is also not easy.

Because this is extremely against human nature.

How did bureaucracy come into being?

This is exactly in line with the famous saying of later generations: Learn the civil and martial arts, and serve the emperor.

——Before becoming a "bureaucrat", a bureaucrat needs to learn both civil and military skills, that is, to have talent.

Moreover, the process of acquiring talent is very purposeful and utilitarian.

To strengthen the body, practice dancing and join the army, or to excel in literature and become an official - learning the arts of literature and martial arts is the means, and the goal is to serve the emperor.

Since it is "goods" for the imperial family, that is, selling one's talents to the ruling class, then naturally one must get corresponding benefits in return to be considered "goods".

The interests here can be the authority, superior social status, and privileges brought by official status.

Naturally, this also includes economic benefits.

Throughout the two thousand years of Chinese history, the four words "promotion" and "getting rich" have almost never been divided into two.

——Getting promoted means getting rich, and the best way to get rich is to get promoted.

why?
Of course, it is not because of promotion that one can get a higher salary, but because of promotion, one will have greater power and can gain more economic benefits for oneself.

Therefore, it is against human nature to serve as an official thousands of miles away without seeking wealth.

Becoming an official for the sake of promotion, and getting promoted for the sake of wealth, is in line with the human instinct of "seeking profit for oneself".

As we all know, an anti-human value system can only be achieved through two means.

Or, it can be guided through "soft" means, namely moral standards and value recognition.

Or, it can be restricted through "hard" means, that is, laws and reward and punishment systems.

The former is less troublesome, while the latter is less troublesome.

And the two can also run in parallel.

Let me give you a very simple example.

The true nature of human beings is almost always profit-driven.

Under the trend of human nature, people will almost only do things that are beneficial to themselves, and they don't care at all whether it harms others or benefits themselves.

If a person truly respects human nature and primitive instincts, then everything he does will be for his own happiness and benefit.

For example, if you like something that belongs to someone else, just take it back.

Once you have it, you will benefit and be happy.

As for others losing things that originally belonged to them?

Sorry, there is no mercy and sympathy in the dictionary of human nature.

Go a step further - if you like someone else's woman, snatch her away.

Occupy it, benefit from it, and feel happy.

As for this woman’s husband?
What's with me?

I want to take all the benefits, I don’t want to take any responsibilities, and I don’t want to care about other people’s lives - this is human nature.

This is human nature.

It is ugly and evil, but it is the primitive instinct of human beings and even most living things.

It is this primitive instinct that enables living things to survive in various extreme and harsh environments.

But this evil nature and instinct is obviously not conducive to the construction of groups and society.

Therefore, in the early stages of group society construction, 'group consensus' began to emerge.

For example, in order to protect the interests of everyone, everyone agrees that they cannot steal or rob each other’s things, and they cannot harm others because of their own preferences.

Most people abide by this common agreement, which is commonly known as the "convention", but there is still a small number of people who violate the convention, either actively or passively.

Therefore, the convention, which originally only prohibited doing something, now has an additional punishment measure for violators.

In addition to the original agreement: you cannot steal or rob, and you cannot kill or injure others at will, another sentence was added: If you violate this agreement, you will be exiled/isolated/imprisoned.

At this point, the convention evolved into law. As time went on, people discovered that laws alone, and the threat of "punishment for violating the rules," were still not enough to completely prevent a small number of individuals from doing things that harm the group.

Therefore, in addition to the hard legal system of "If you dare to do this, you will receive this punishment", a soft moral system of "If you do this, everyone will look down on you, despise you, and isolate you" has also emerged.

And with the development of human civilization, the two gradually combined to become the foundation of social structure.

If you steal petty things, everyone will despise you;

If you steal too much, people will isolate you and stay away from you;

If you steal something serious, the government will arrest you.

This progressive punishment system, which steps from soft to hard and from social morality to legal system, eventually became the social building block of human civilization.

But still the same sentence.

In the history of human civilization, no concept of right and wrong was formed overnight.

——In the old days, if a man and a woman liked each other, they would just knock the other person out with a stick, and then drag the person back to the cave to make a baby!
At that time, no one thought this was wrong.

Gradually, people came to a unanimous agreement: being hit with a club is a bit painful, and there is a risk of being hit to death, so could it be changed a little bit?
If you like someone, can you please not hit him/her unconsciously? Just go up to him/her and say something, and ask him/her to follow you back to the cave obediently, okay?
When the other party is unhappy, you can tie him up and hit him with a club.

In this way, no matter which dynasty or era it happens, isn't it raping women?

But in ancient times, this was the social consensus at the time.

Human beings have developed and progressed little by little from the primitive way of courtship in ancient times of "hitting the other person with a stick" to the civilized way of courtship with three matchmakers and six brides and marriage.

The same is true.

At the beginning, everyone agreed that officials were corrupt.

——Isn’t the purpose of being an official to make money?

Don’t look at me now, I’m calling the officials shameless!
When I become an official, I will be even more shameless than him!

Gradually, everyone began to realize that this was not feasible.

It is too harmful to the group and society, and it delays important work.

As a result, new conventions and consensus began to emerge - it is okay to make money, but try not to delay the group's main business.

As long as things can be done well and the local area can be governed well, then being a little greedy and making some money is natural.

——You can’t expect people to work for free, right?

Why should I work for ordinary people in the world for nothing when I have learned both civil and martial arts?

If someone has the ability to be an official, he should get corresponding benefits!
The Han Dynasty is now at this stage.

——People of this era do not hate corruption as deeply as the people of the new era in the future.

Because in the eyes of people in this era, being an official seems to have only one purpose: to make a profit.

To be precise, any special talent seems to be worth receiving benefits of corresponding value.

For example, a brave warrior who kills enemies and makes achievements on the battlefield should be rewarded!

For example, if writers and poets can put forward suggestions and policies that are beneficial to the country, they should be promoted to higher positions.

What's more, official positions are themselves a form of reward.

This makes corruption and bribery, in this era, socially accepted to a degree that is hard to imagine for people in later generations.

Throwing vegetable leaves at corrupt officials is almost impossible to happen in the Han Dynasty today.

If an official is dismissed for corruption and bribery, people will never say "he deserves it" but will instead guess: Did he forget to do his job while making money?

If so, you deserve it.

He deserved to be dismissed not because of making money, but because of delaying important work.

If not, then the emperor is mean and ungrateful.

——It's just a way to make some money, why make such a fuss?
Isn't it normal for officials to make money?

People work hard to acquire talents and finally become officials. It is their duty to make money, and it is a favor not to make money.

Honest officials are indeed worthy of admiration and respect, because they have high morals and can do things that ordinary people cannot do and resist temptations that ordinary people cannot resist.

But officials who make money are not so worthy of being cursed or despised.

After all, he is an official, not a moral role model.

As an official, all you need to do is get your job done.

An official who can get things done is a good official, and an official who cannot is a bad official.

Whether or not you make money is not important at all...

Such a value system - such a social universal value orientation naturally makes it extremely easy for officials of this era to engage in corruption.

It seems like corruption is the norm, and if you don’t get corrupt, you’ll be at a loss.

Then, the slavery case broke out and quickly fermented under the deliberate promotion of Emperor Liu Rong.

By the time it fermented to the end, it had already triggered a big thought.

——Should officials really engage in corruption?
Should people of the world - at least the court, or the emperor, really allow officials to abuse their power for personal gain and harm others for their own benefit?

For future generations, the answer to this question is self-evident.

There is no need to elaborate on the damage that corruption can cause to a country, a regime, and even a civilization.

This is the crux of the problem.

——Originally, everyone followed their instincts, as if "when you are hungry, you should eat" and "when you are thirsty, you should drink water", and subconsciously agreed with the idea that "officials should make money".

The thoughts triggered by this slavery case directly point to the core conflict between the bureaucratic system, the political power and civilization.

That is, as a tool of the ruling class, the bureaucracy will naturally acquire some of the ruling class's rights to a greater or lesser extent.

This part of rights should have helped the bureaucracy become a better tool of rule.

But apart from the identity label of "bureaucrat", the bureaucracy is also part of the entire society.

This makes them also have seven emotions and six desires.

As a result, the power held by the bureaucrats was used to pursue personal gain.

——The ruling class certainly hopes that all the rights they give will be used for "public affairs".

The bureaucratic group also hopes that all of their power can be used to profit for themselves.

The contradiction between the two is not sharp, but it is extremely difficult to reconcile.

So, you advance and I retreat, you retreat and I advance.

——When the ruling class doesn't care, the bureaucrats will act unruly and engage in self-interest.

After all, it would be a waste if you don’t take it.

——When the ruling class is strong, the bureaucrats should be more timid, obedient and restrained.

After all, it hurts when you are hit by a board.

(End of this chapter)