Liberty is hardly the "natural" order of things. In most places and at most times, the strong have dominated the weak and human freedom has been quashed by force or by customs and norms. Either states have been too weak to protect individuals from these threats or states have been too strong for people to protect themselves from despotism. Liberty emerges only when a delicate and precarious balance is struck between state and society.
There is a happy Western myth that political liberty is a durable construct, a steady state, arrived at by a process of "enlightenment." This static view is a fantasy, the authors argue; rather, the space to attain and maintain liberty stays open only via a fundamental and incessant struggle between state and society. The power of state institutions and the elites that control them has never gone uncontested in a free society. In fact, the capacity to contest them is the definition of liberty. State institutions have to evolve continuously as the nature of conflicts and needs of the society change, and thus society's ability to keep state and rulers accountable must intensify in tandem with the capabilities of the state. This struggle between state and society becomes self-reinforcing, inducing both to develop a richer array of capacities just to keep moving forward along the corridor. Yet this struggle also underscores the fragile nature of liberty. It is built on a delicate balance between state and society, between economic, political and social elites and citizens, between institutions and norms. One side of the balance gets too strong, and as it has often happened in history, liberty begins to wane. Liberty depends on the vigilant mobilization of society. But it also needs state institutions to continuously reinvent themselves in order to meet new economic and social challenges that can easily close the space liberty needs to survive.
Today we are in the midst of a time of wrenching destabilization. We need liberty more than ever, and yet the corridor to liberty is getting narrower and more treacherous. The danger on the horizon is not "just" the loss of our political freedom, however grim that is in itself; it is also to the prosperity and safety that critically depend on liberty. The opposite of the corridor of liberty is the road to ruin.
1 有用 Marlais 2022-07-08 15:31:36
1)框架还是有新意的,强国家能力其实依赖于公民的信任和self compliance,最强的国家能力最往往和强社会制约能力共生(shackled Leviathan),纯专制国家的政府能力通常都较为有限(天朝可能是例外)。2)由于社会/国家力量初始条件不同,相同方向的冲击可能会走向不同的均衡路径。3)现代经济体系愈发需要强国家能力的支持,新的形势要求国家扩张干预时,需要能够结成广泛的社会联盟,既能... 1)框架还是有新意的,强国家能力其实依赖于公民的信任和self compliance,最强的国家能力最往往和强社会制约能力共生(shackled Leviathan),纯专制国家的政府能力通常都较为有限(天朝可能是例外)。2)由于社会/国家力量初始条件不同,相同方向的冲击可能会走向不同的均衡路径。3)现代经济体系愈发需要强国家能力的支持,新的形势要求国家扩张干预时,需要能够结成广泛的社会联盟,既能制约监督扩大的利维坦,又能在不同利益群体间协商妥协。我感觉state-society contest model不足以装下解释政治发展路径的野心,把普通民众、经济精英、公民社会、宗族酋长种姓等传统社会力量都一股脑套为society过度简约了。另外中国的章节有不少小史实错误,读起来确实非常“外宾”。 (展开)
0 有用 大林煎饼 2022-07-29 11:28:37
感觉就是唰啦一把转了一遍地球仪,走马观花地看了看宏观的气象,没什么太记得住的东西。
1 有用 [已注销] 2020-01-01 13:02:27
理论框架机械主义,史料运用削足适履。
1 有用 hx 2022-02-24 20:58:07
对某朝分析可谓一针见血 就是整本书太冗长了
0 有用 王碗130 2023-09-18 13:04:21 上海
看了其中一章,实证材料很无聊。。。
0 有用 鱼酱! 2024-01-06 15:39:04 北京
比较政治经济史学的长时段演化主义浪潮,毛咕噜的意识形态预设一如既往的严重。(3/3)
0 有用 丢二 2023-12-20 21:26:32 浙江
代标繁中版。主旨很简单,一句话概括:“政府-社会竞争”导致的窄廊之中才能诞生自由和繁荣。跟其中一条书评的印象类似,“政府-社会竞争”模型有点过度简化了。论证过程像是先射箭再画靶。读了前7章弃了。
0 有用 王碗130 2023-09-18 13:04:21 上海
看了其中一章,实证材料很无聊。。。
0 有用 LarryTheRacoon 2023-08-29 23:19:04 美国
我真的想大呼救命。。。
0 有用 xxxxwulala 2023-08-16 09:53:38 重庆
台版,三星半,核心有理但缺乏新意,书内容太散