Interpreting the Relationship Between Free Trade and the Well-Being Economy

First, let's talk about pleasure and happiness

In English, both words can be translated as happy, but their connotations are clearly a little different. Pleasure is a fairly personal feeling, while happiness requires at least two people to be happy together; that is, a state of overall harmony. So building your own pleasure on another person's pain cannot be called happiness, and this overall state of disharmony will in the end inevitably erode your own pleasure.

Now let's talk about freedom and happiness

"Give me liberty or give me death." For any living being, freedom is very important. But freedom is only a process; its meaning lies in letting people choose a goal to which they willingly devote everything. In other words, the endpoint of freedom should be the loss of freedom, but the method by which I lose my freedom is my own choice, not something forced on me. If freedom is treated as the goal while one is unwilling to take root and devote one's life, such a life in the end will inevitably not be complete. A person must first become oneself (freedom), and then use one's happiest and most skilled way to create meaning for others, thereby realizing a state of overall pleasure (happiness). Freedom is not equal to happiness; it is merely a pair of wings for pursuing happiness.

The principle of free trade is that both sides, under open, fair, and just conditions, each develop the industries they are best at, and then obtain the greatest benefit for each other through exchange. This also fits the concept of happiness.

However, when such a process becomes non-open, unfair, and unjust, it often sacrifices some people to secure the interests of another group, which violates not only happiness but also freedom. Happiness inevitably involves some sacrifice (or trade-off), but this is the voluntary choice of the giver under free will, in order to achieve our greatest overall happiness. Lin Juemin's Letter to His Wife Before Death says: "I love you deeply, and it is this very thought of loving you that gives me the courage to face death." Such a sacrifice is completely different from the sacrifice of being forcibly dragged onto the battlefield. Although if a person is not selfish, heaven and earth will destroy them, if a leader can open up a common vision for a group with an unselfish heart, then the people will understand that for the beloved people or goals they cherish, such sacrifice is worthwhile. Yet when leaders use their position for personal gain, or even hand over the overall well-being to a small number of people in private, then of course everyone will become more selfish than the next.

In free trade negotiations, nothing is more important than tariff negotiations. For conglomerates, tariffs are an obstacle, so they must be eliminated. But the people should seriously think about what the purpose of tariffs is. If I run a restaurant, would I post a sign at the door welcoming outside food? Would banning outside food keep a restaurant's cooking from improving at all? Many plausible-sounding arguments are in fact just the conglomerates' own talking points. May I ask, why should people who have not received a single cent act as spokespeople for conglomerates?

Speaking of eliminating trade barriers, what makes people angriest is lowering food safety standards, because food that travels long distances will inevitably get worms. To avoid customs quarantine problems, imported food must inevitably use many and very heavy chemicals or irradiation to kill insects, sterilize, and exterminate rodents. But if our drug residue standards are too strict, they cannot import, so in order to "eliminate trade barriers," we have greatly relaxed drug residue standards. Now we even take the initiative to amend the law so that American beef containing ractopamine and mad cow disease can come in. May I ask, whose interests is this for?

Many people will say that in order to promote the development of industry and commerce, we are bound to make some sacrifices. May I ask, are the people saying this the vested interests or those to whom it does not matter? Are such people qualified to speak? Why can we only see victims forced onto the streets, and then see fragmentary and distorted news reports? Is this the pain of moving toward a happy society, or a sign of heading toward disintegration?

South Korea is scary, but why should we take South Korea as a competitor? Because they are getting richer and richer? If we clearly understand that happiness is a goal a mature society should pursue more than pleasure, then we would not be so foolish as to treat South Korea as an imaginary enemy. Look at South Korea's social movements!

Justice: A Journey in Moral Reasoning
If sacrificing one person can make the whole society happy, can you accept it? If you did not know what kind of person you would be reincarnated as, what kind of society would you choose? Is this consistent with your current standard of judgment?

Amateur Riot
The author Matsumoto Nao is, like me, born in 1974. Seeing the book was like meeting an old friend at first sight; I really like him too much. Being poor is not shameful; what is shameful is making money by sacrificing others. Have some backbone!

The Local Happiness Economy
Although I have not yet read this book, seeing "local" tells me the direction is right. The foundation of globalization is localization. What we are best at should not be polluting the environment and sacrificing the disadvantaged, but building a happy Taiwan, China. When more and more people are willing to devote themselves to this goal, we will have unmatched charm to earn money from all over the world.

Koreans will come to beg us to rule them XDDD

[Exclusive Interview] Matsumoto Nao of Amateur Riot: We are here to make trouble! (PNN News)