《血酬定律》自序：二、补说元规则 More on Metarules
二、补说元规则
More on Metarules
“元规则”这个词，我在杰弗里•布伦南和詹姆斯•M•布坎南的《规则之理：宪政经济学》中初次看到【1】，英文原文是“meta-rules”，用以称呼那些决定或选择规则的规则，位于更高和更抽象层次的规则。这种区分，让我感觉眼前一亮。
It was in "The Reason of Rules: Constitutional Political Economy", written by Geoffrey Brennan and James M. Buchanan, that I first picked up the word "metarule". It is an elegant abstraction of the parent rules governing the rules that we readily recognize. This peculiar divide refreshed my mind.
我家最厚的工具书是《英汉辞海》，里面查不到这个词。大概杜撰不久，尚未流行。根据前缀meta-的通常译法，这个词可以译为“元规则”。元是初始、首要和根本的意思。
The word "metarule" seems to be newly frabricated and not yet used widely enough to be included in the big dictionary on my desktop.
元规则的具体内容是什么？在《规则之理》第七章中，布伦南和布坎南先生谈到了正义性，谈到了同意的广度和强度，还谈到了多数原则。作为生活在民主宪政国家的公民，他们这么说当然不错，但在我这个遥远的读者看来，却句句别扭，满心抵触，闹得几乎读不下去。中国历史清晰而强悍地告诉我：事实根本就不是那么回事。他们不对。他们的说法，只有加上苛刻的限制条件之后才是对的。
What does metarule entail? In Chapter 7 of "The Reason of Rules", Brennan and Buchanan talked about justice, the types and characters of agreement, as well as the existence of prevailing rules. They are citizens of constitutional democratic republics and their speech is consistent with what they see. But to me, the reader who lives in a distant land, their words were too counterintuitive to follow along. The Chinese history sneers at me because that eloquent thesis applies not the least to reality. They are wrong. Without stringent constraints, their argument simply falls apart.
我留心看过《大明律》的制订过程，也留意过明朝初年更高级别的法规《大诰》如何制订，如何实施，如何失而复行，又如何架空撤销。制订《大明律》的时候，几个大儒参照唐朝的法律，一条一条地修订，一条一条地草拟，朱元璋又一条一条地品评，修改，改了又改，最后立为天下法。但是皇帝本人并不遵行，另外编撰了一套个人色彩浓重的严刑苛法《大诰》。朱元璋死后，他的孙子即位，放弃了《大诰》，随后被自己的叔叔打败，夺了帝位。新皇帝上台，又恢复了《大诰》。在这些来回折腾中，决定和选择法规的规则变得十分清晰，那就是：暴力最强者说了算。在晚清的频繁变法中，这条元规则再次清晰地显露出来：暴力竞争的胜利者说了算，无论胜利者是洋人还是女人。
I have previously carefully studied the preparation of the "Great Ming Code", and also noted how was the "Great Admonition", a higher rank law in the early years of the Ming dynasty, drafted, executed, discontinued, reinstated, neglected, and finally abolished. In making the "Great Ming Code", several pundits, using the laws of the Tang dynasty as the blueprint, composed and edited the draft entry by entry. Zhu Yuanzhang, the first emperor of the Ming dynasty, reviewed every single word and sent it back to revision. Only after so many rounds of revisions had passed was the Code promulgated. However, the emperor himself did not adhere to the Code and instead made the "Great Admonition", a very oppressive criminal code that was characteristic of his personality. His grandson took power after his death and dropped the "Great Admonition", but was later outcast by his uncle and lost his throne. The new emperor then reinstated the "Great Admonition" after his reign began. Clearly in these flip-flops, the rule to determine rules was that: the strongest armed force had the final say. Again, in the capricious political reforms of the late Qing dynasty, this metarule dominated: the winner of the violence contest dictates, be it the Empress Dowager Cixi or the western powers.
那么，正义在什么地方呢？多数同意又在什么地方呢？是不是可以说，正义就在草拟法规的大儒的心里，就在审定草案的皇帝的心里？皇帝得了天下，意味着他得到了多数人的拥护，而多数人所以拥护他，又因为他代表了正义？
Reflections on Brennan and Buchanan again: where exactly does justice reside then? And what about common consent? Is it fair to claim that justice was in the heart of the pundits making the draft, and of the emperor doing the review? Was the victory of the emperor in gaining his territory because of most people supported him, and most people supported him because he was the justice?
这种回答拐了个弯，已经不是针对规则制订所遵循的规则和程序了。而且，拐弯后的答案依然成问题。成吉思汗的铁骑践踏了欧亚大陆，生杀予夺，随心所欲，只是因为他掌握了最强的暴力，与常规意义上的正义与同意并不搭界。成吉思汗和他的子孙到处立法，充分体现了人类历史上的元规则：暴力竞争的胜利者说了算。
Deviating from the question like that detracts from inspecting rule-making procedures. Besides, even that distorted answer still fails to make sense. Genghis Khan swept Eurasia with his troops and wielded absolute power. He had total discretion on everything only because he owned unparalled armed force, and that had nothing to do with justice or agreement. The fact that he and his descendents set rules everywhere fully demonstrates the metarule in human history: the winner of the violence contest dictates.
更进一步说，什么叫正义？正义又是如何决定的？儒家教义被赋予宣示正义的正统地位，这本身也是暴力最强者的选择。
Furthermore, what is justice after all? How is justice defined? Do not forget that it was the owner of the most mighty violence that opted to set Confucianism as orthodoxy.
打下江山后，朱元璋曾经审查儒家经典，他读到孟子的一句话：“君之视臣如土芥，则臣视君如寇仇。”这句话强调了社会关系中正义的交互性，并无不妥。但是，朱元璋正是一个“视臣如土芥”的君主，他怒道：“这老儿要是活到今天，非严办不可！”朱元璋下令撤消孟子在孔庙中的配享资格，同时下令，有为此而谏者，以大不敬论。后来，皇帝又命令儒臣重新编《孟子》，删去85条，被删除的都是一些强调民比君更重要的文字。明朝科举考试，用的就是删改后的《孟子节文》。
Zhu Yuanzhang examined classical publications of Confucianism after he conquered the country, and he came across one sentence written by Mencius: "when he (the prince) regards them (his ministers) as the ground or as grass, they regard him as a robber and an enemy." This underlines the reciprocity of justice in social relations and is not at all inappropriate. However, Zhu Yuanzhang himself is exactly the emperor that "regards his ministers as the ground or as grass", and he yelled in rage: "this old fart must be prosecuted if he were to be still living today!" He then ordered the memorial of Mencius to be removed from the Confucian temple and declared that any remonstrance against this decision would be held liable to felonious contempt for emperorship. At a later time, he ordered scholars in his government to edit "The Works of Mencius" and had 85 chapters deleted, which were all passages that said the people are more important than the emperor, and the trimmed version was used in all imperial examinations throughout the Ming dynasty.
再往远说，在中华帝国的源头处，汉武帝采纳董仲舒的建议，罢黜百家，独尊儒术，也提现了暴力最强者对正义观念的选择权。细读董仲舒的天人三策，他劝皇帝独尊儒术的基本逻辑，就是强调儒术合乎皇家的根本利益，如此选择对皇帝有利，对天下有利，不如此将重蹈秦朝的覆辙，等等。
Rewinding far back to the infancy of imperial China when Emperor Wu of the Han dynasty adopted the recommendation of Dong Zhongshu to promote Confucianism to the official ideology and eradicate all other schools of thought, that move was a deliberate selection of justice from the standpoint of the strongest armed force. In Dong's proposal, entitled "Three Schemes about Heaven and People", his thesis was that Confucianism best suits the interest of the emperor, that the exclusion of all others is favorable for the emperor and his land, and that failure to do so would incur a collapse like the bust of the preceding Qin dynasty, etc.
即使汉武帝做出了独尊儒术的决定，在实际操作中，他的孙子汉宣帝也非常明白地训诫自己的儿子：“汉家自有制度，本以霸王道杂之，奈何纯任德教，用周政乎？”依然把儒家的王道当作次要的统治手段和装饰，并不全心服从。
The Emperor Wu elevated Confucianism to the utmost position but actions were not necessarily consistent with words. In fact, Emperor Xuan, the grandson of Emperor Wu, criticized his son: "We use both legalism and Confucianism in our system as a whole. Why (do you) resort only to benevolence like the bygone Zhou dynasty?" Clearly the Confucian idea of kingship was taken as an embellishment to the genuine primary ruling measure rather than being the truly exclusive ideology.
或许根本不必寻找历史证据。简单的逻辑可以告诉我们，在发生争执的时候，如果在肉体上消灭对手很合算，那么，只要拔出刀来，问对手想死想活，任何争执都不难解决，任何意见都不难统一。暴力可以压倒所有规则，反之则不然。
Historical evidence is actually dispensible. Just do the math: if in a dispute it is worthwhile to physically wipe out the opponent, just pull the scimitar out and ask if the opponent still wants to live and an agreement will be reached. Violence can override any rule, but not the other way around.
这种逻辑所蕴含的更一般的道理是：在挑选规则的时候，拥有让对手得不偿失的伤害能力的一方，拥有否决权。死亡是最彻底的损失，所以，暴力最强者拥有最高否决权。
Theunderlyinggeneralreasonisthatinselectingrules,vetobelongstowhoeverhasenough destructivepowertoslash theopponent'sgains and negate the figure on the bottom line.Deathistheultimateloss,thustheownerofthegreatestviolenceforcehasthefinalsay.
总之，逻辑和历史经验共同告诉我们：暴力最强者说了算，这是决定各种规则的元规则。暴力最强者的选择，体现了对自身利益最大化的追求，而不是对正义的追求。暴力最强者甚至可以选择并修改正义观念本身。当然，平民并非不重要。在长时段上，平民的选择和对策，从热烈拥护到俯首帖耳到怠工偷懒到揭竿而起，可以决定暴力竞争者的选择的成本和收益，决定选择者的兴亡荣辱，从而间接地影响统治者对法规的选择，间接地影响正义观念和统治者对正义观念的选择。
Summing it up, from experience and by reasoning, the metarule is that the owner of the greatest violence force makes the final decision, and that decision aims at maximizing the gains of the violence entity instead of pursuit for justice. Justice can even be redefined on demand. This is not to say that the people are insignificant. In the long run, the choices and strategies of the civilians, from support to subservience, disloyalty and insurrection, will determine the cost and benefits of what the violence entity has chosen and hence the rise and fall of the ruler. In this way, the people indirectly affect how the ruler selects rules and defines justice.
More on Metarules
“元规则”这个词，我在杰弗里•布伦南和詹姆斯•M•布坎南的《规则之理：宪政经济学》中初次看到【1】，英文原文是“meta-rules”，用以称呼那些决定或选择规则的规则，位于更高和更抽象层次的规则。这种区分，让我感觉眼前一亮。
It was in "The Reason of Rules: Constitutional Political Economy", written by Geoffrey Brennan and James M. Buchanan, that I first picked up the word "metarule". It is an elegant abstraction of the parent rules governing the rules that we readily recognize. This peculiar divide refreshed my mind.
我家最厚的工具书是《英汉辞海》，里面查不到这个词。大概杜撰不久，尚未流行。根据前缀meta-的通常译法，这个词可以译为“元规则”。元是初始、首要和根本的意思。
The word "metarule" seems to be newly frabricated and not yet used widely enough to be included in the big dictionary on my desktop.
元规则的具体内容是什么？在《规则之理》第七章中，布伦南和布坎南先生谈到了正义性，谈到了同意的广度和强度，还谈到了多数原则。作为生活在民主宪政国家的公民，他们这么说当然不错，但在我这个遥远的读者看来，却句句别扭，满心抵触，闹得几乎读不下去。中国历史清晰而强悍地告诉我：事实根本就不是那么回事。他们不对。他们的说法，只有加上苛刻的限制条件之后才是对的。
What does metarule entail? In Chapter 7 of "The Reason of Rules", Brennan and Buchanan talked about justice, the types and characters of agreement, as well as the existence of prevailing rules. They are citizens of constitutional democratic republics and their speech is consistent with what they see. But to me, the reader who lives in a distant land, their words were too counterintuitive to follow along. The Chinese history sneers at me because that eloquent thesis applies not the least to reality. They are wrong. Without stringent constraints, their argument simply falls apart.
我留心看过《大明律》的制订过程，也留意过明朝初年更高级别的法规《大诰》如何制订，如何实施，如何失而复行，又如何架空撤销。制订《大明律》的时候，几个大儒参照唐朝的法律，一条一条地修订，一条一条地草拟，朱元璋又一条一条地品评，修改，改了又改，最后立为天下法。但是皇帝本人并不遵行，另外编撰了一套个人色彩浓重的严刑苛法《大诰》。朱元璋死后，他的孙子即位，放弃了《大诰》，随后被自己的叔叔打败，夺了帝位。新皇帝上台，又恢复了《大诰》。在这些来回折腾中，决定和选择法规的规则变得十分清晰，那就是：暴力最强者说了算。在晚清的频繁变法中，这条元规则再次清晰地显露出来：暴力竞争的胜利者说了算，无论胜利者是洋人还是女人。
I have previously carefully studied the preparation of the "Great Ming Code", and also noted how was the "Great Admonition", a higher rank law in the early years of the Ming dynasty, drafted, executed, discontinued, reinstated, neglected, and finally abolished. In making the "Great Ming Code", several pundits, using the laws of the Tang dynasty as the blueprint, composed and edited the draft entry by entry. Zhu Yuanzhang, the first emperor of the Ming dynasty, reviewed every single word and sent it back to revision. Only after so many rounds of revisions had passed was the Code promulgated. However, the emperor himself did not adhere to the Code and instead made the "Great Admonition", a very oppressive criminal code that was characteristic of his personality. His grandson took power after his death and dropped the "Great Admonition", but was later outcast by his uncle and lost his throne. The new emperor then reinstated the "Great Admonition" after his reign began. Clearly in these flip-flops, the rule to determine rules was that: the strongest armed force had the final say. Again, in the capricious political reforms of the late Qing dynasty, this metarule dominated: the winner of the violence contest dictates, be it the Empress Dowager Cixi or the western powers.
那么，正义在什么地方呢？多数同意又在什么地方呢？是不是可以说，正义就在草拟法规的大儒的心里，就在审定草案的皇帝的心里？皇帝得了天下，意味着他得到了多数人的拥护，而多数人所以拥护他，又因为他代表了正义？
Reflections on Brennan and Buchanan again: where exactly does justice reside then? And what about common consent? Is it fair to claim that justice was in the heart of the pundits making the draft, and of the emperor doing the review? Was the victory of the emperor in gaining his territory because of most people supported him, and most people supported him because he was the justice?
这种回答拐了个弯，已经不是针对规则制订所遵循的规则和程序了。而且，拐弯后的答案依然成问题。成吉思汗的铁骑践踏了欧亚大陆，生杀予夺，随心所欲，只是因为他掌握了最强的暴力，与常规意义上的正义与同意并不搭界。成吉思汗和他的子孙到处立法，充分体现了人类历史上的元规则：暴力竞争的胜利者说了算。
Deviating from the question like that detracts from inspecting rule-making procedures. Besides, even that distorted answer still fails to make sense. Genghis Khan swept Eurasia with his troops and wielded absolute power. He had total discretion on everything only because he owned unparalled armed force, and that had nothing to do with justice or agreement. The fact that he and his descendents set rules everywhere fully demonstrates the metarule in human history: the winner of the violence contest dictates.
更进一步说，什么叫正义？正义又是如何决定的？儒家教义被赋予宣示正义的正统地位，这本身也是暴力最强者的选择。
Furthermore, what is justice after all? How is justice defined? Do not forget that it was the owner of the most mighty violence that opted to set Confucianism as orthodoxy.
打下江山后，朱元璋曾经审查儒家经典，他读到孟子的一句话：“君之视臣如土芥，则臣视君如寇仇。”这句话强调了社会关系中正义的交互性，并无不妥。但是，朱元璋正是一个“视臣如土芥”的君主，他怒道：“这老儿要是活到今天，非严办不可！”朱元璋下令撤消孟子在孔庙中的配享资格，同时下令，有为此而谏者，以大不敬论。后来，皇帝又命令儒臣重新编《孟子》，删去85条，被删除的都是一些强调民比君更重要的文字。明朝科举考试，用的就是删改后的《孟子节文》。
Zhu Yuanzhang examined classical publications of Confucianism after he conquered the country, and he came across one sentence written by Mencius: "when he (the prince) regards them (his ministers) as the ground or as grass, they regard him as a robber and an enemy." This underlines the reciprocity of justice in social relations and is not at all inappropriate. However, Zhu Yuanzhang himself is exactly the emperor that "regards his ministers as the ground or as grass", and he yelled in rage: "this old fart must be prosecuted if he were to be still living today!" He then ordered the memorial of Mencius to be removed from the Confucian temple and declared that any remonstrance against this decision would be held liable to felonious contempt for emperorship. At a later time, he ordered scholars in his government to edit "The Works of Mencius" and had 85 chapters deleted, which were all passages that said the people are more important than the emperor, and the trimmed version was used in all imperial examinations throughout the Ming dynasty.
再往远说，在中华帝国的源头处，汉武帝采纳董仲舒的建议，罢黜百家，独尊儒术，也提现了暴力最强者对正义观念的选择权。细读董仲舒的天人三策，他劝皇帝独尊儒术的基本逻辑，就是强调儒术合乎皇家的根本利益，如此选择对皇帝有利，对天下有利，不如此将重蹈秦朝的覆辙，等等。
Rewinding far back to the infancy of imperial China when Emperor Wu of the Han dynasty adopted the recommendation of Dong Zhongshu to promote Confucianism to the official ideology and eradicate all other schools of thought, that move was a deliberate selection of justice from the standpoint of the strongest armed force. In Dong's proposal, entitled "Three Schemes about Heaven and People", his thesis was that Confucianism best suits the interest of the emperor, that the exclusion of all others is favorable for the emperor and his land, and that failure to do so would incur a collapse like the bust of the preceding Qin dynasty, etc.
即使汉武帝做出了独尊儒术的决定，在实际操作中，他的孙子汉宣帝也非常明白地训诫自己的儿子：“汉家自有制度，本以霸王道杂之，奈何纯任德教，用周政乎？”依然把儒家的王道当作次要的统治手段和装饰，并不全心服从。
The Emperor Wu elevated Confucianism to the utmost position but actions were not necessarily consistent with words. In fact, Emperor Xuan, the grandson of Emperor Wu, criticized his son: "We use both legalism and Confucianism in our system as a whole. Why (do you) resort only to benevolence like the bygone Zhou dynasty?" Clearly the Confucian idea of kingship was taken as an embellishment to the genuine primary ruling measure rather than being the truly exclusive ideology.
或许根本不必寻找历史证据。简单的逻辑可以告诉我们，在发生争执的时候，如果在肉体上消灭对手很合算，那么，只要拔出刀来，问对手想死想活，任何争执都不难解决，任何意见都不难统一。暴力可以压倒所有规则，反之则不然。
Historical evidence is actually dispensible. Just do the math: if in a dispute it is worthwhile to physically wipe out the opponent, just pull the scimitar out and ask if the opponent still wants to live and an agreement will be reached. Violence can override any rule, but not the other way around.
这种逻辑所蕴含的更一般的道理是：在挑选规则的时候，拥有让对手得不偿失的伤害能力的一方，拥有否决权。死亡是最彻底的损失，所以，暴力最强者拥有最高否决权。
Theunderlyinggeneralreasonisthatinselectingrules,vetobelongstowhoeverhasenough destructivepowertoslash theopponent'sgains and negate the figure on the bottom line.Deathistheultimateloss,thustheownerofthegreatestviolenceforcehasthefinalsay.
总之，逻辑和历史经验共同告诉我们：暴力最强者说了算，这是决定各种规则的元规则。暴力最强者的选择，体现了对自身利益最大化的追求，而不是对正义的追求。暴力最强者甚至可以选择并修改正义观念本身。当然，平民并非不重要。在长时段上，平民的选择和对策，从热烈拥护到俯首帖耳到怠工偷懒到揭竿而起，可以决定暴力竞争者的选择的成本和收益，决定选择者的兴亡荣辱，从而间接地影响统治者对法规的选择，间接地影响正义观念和统治者对正义观念的选择。
Summing it up, from experience and by reasoning, the metarule is that the owner of the greatest violence force makes the final decision, and that decision aims at maximizing the gains of the violence entity instead of pursuit for justice. Justice can even be redefined on demand. This is not to say that the people are insignificant. In the long run, the choices and strategies of the civilians, from support to subservience, disloyalty and insurrection, will determine the cost and benefits of what the violence entity has chosen and hence the rise and fall of the ruler. In this way, the people indirectly affect how the ruler selects rules and defines justice.
