【Native Speaker每日综合训练—31系列】【31-19】经管- China's Reform and Opening Up

wensd1111

1 A 02:04
2 A 01:47
3 A 02:11
4 A 01:59
5 A 02:00
6 A 02:10
7 A 05:11
GDP grow.poverty dimelished,inport and export products. enviroment regulation.

JimmyCruz

T1 2:13
T2 3:09
回忆：1. 写情书很普遍。2. 婚庆很简单。3. 钱成为主流后，主动找伴侣，背叛增多。4. 婚姻法设立，离婚率上升。5. 更自由混乱6. 诚实别搞婚外情。
Memo
The passage describes the development of both the concept of marriage in different generation’s perspective and some ramification of marriage.
First, the author mentioned Zhang and Li to demonstrate that the generation after reform and opening up are generally shy to show their emotion and affection. To watch a movie is a memorable experience to this couple. Zhao is another example that he wrote to his wife monthly to express his love and miss.
In the second para, the author depicts the form of marriage. Since most people were not well-off in 1980s, a simple banquet could wrap up the marriage. In 1980s, it’s immoral to divorce.
In 1990s People tried to find their true love and take more initiative to find partner on their own rather than accepting arranged marriage. Young girls would get along with rich businessmen. Rich men started to have concubines, which threatened the social fabric.
After the marital law was published, the divorce rate increased to a high level during this period. Problems like extramarital affairs and family violence occurred and brought to the table. The marital law revised several times to solve these social problems.
Nowadays, more freedom is shown while more confusion occurs as well. Premarital sex is no longer a secret to modern teenagers. But the lack of attention to love lead to severe problems.
Honesty, according to a research done recently, is highlighted in today’s marital concepts. Over 50 percent of female participants in the research responded that they take marriage as the most important thing of their life. 46% said honesty is crucial to their relationship. Some percent claimed that they cannot withstand extramarital affairs.

JimmyCruz

Memo
Why do governments exist? One of the most certainly reasons is government provide rules and maintain the order of a society. Are those rules desireable or effective? That is open to discussion.
Rules are created to settle or resolve conflicts among people. Why would people have conflicts? Maybe because the pursuit of ownership or property propels people to fight against each other.
The second role that government play is to protect people from outside interference. Long ago, there is no clear boundary between two countries. Such ambiguity creates the opportunity for invasion. Foreign country could invade whenever they want, to rob precious assets like jewelry or gold and dominate certain crutial area that embody so many resources. Therefore, people living in remote area would always suffer from the invasion of outsiders from time to time. Thus, people agree to form a sovernty, to train armies, and to protect or defend the rest. Indeed in the twentieth century, countries formed alliances and triggered world wars in the name of protection and order.
The responsibilities of government extended beyond rule-maker and protector. A government should also provide social and economic service. For example, all the infrastructure should be ensured by the government such as high way or underground or other transportation means. In the 1930s, the great depression caused by the burst of economic bubble had great dip influence to the whole society. Government in US, as it was set up, clearly stated that they would not meddle with business world. But as the depression greatly influenced the daily life of citizens, the government lent a hand to save all those unfallable giants from falling.
One controversial responsibility of government is whether or not they should provide social programs such as the “great society” unveiled by President Johnson aiming at eliminating poverty from the society. Many american argued that the great venture would harm individual’s sense of responsibility of his/her well being. Though in Europe, the government do venture huge amount to support the retire and medical programs. The debate over the proper role of government is still alive and well today.

JimmyCruz

Memo：
The types of government
To understand how government work, we should at first take a glimpse of the types of government. Different rules shape different governments. Rules shape legitimacy, the degree to which people accept the authority of the government.
Rules by man
Citizens governed by absolute decision of king or queen may not necessarily feel unhappy. King or queen who rule wisely and justly may earn a great deal of legitimacy and be accepted by citizens.
Sometimes, people accept their leader because they fear of the consequences if they don’t. as one famous line goes, better be feared than loved. If the feared leader is seen as bringing the prosperity and protecting the lives of his subjects, the people governed may entirely be happy.
The absolute leader sometimes get accepted because people believe that god gives the power or the right to the leader to rule. This is refer to as devine right, which is related to monarchy, a form of government that king or queen’s power is hereditary. The similar idea legitimized Chinese emperor whose power would be threatened if others believed that he had lost the mandate of heaven.
Rule by man sometimes take the form of oligarchy, in which the elite are selected to govern according to their wealth, social status, military power or achievement. A more common form is aristocracy, or rule of the highest. But as long as the government is ruled by men, the decision would still be arbitrary and absolute.
Rule by law
Rule by law exists in many political system in which those in power cannot have the final say of any decision, but must follow an existing code of law. In ancient times, a byzantine leader established justinian’s code, a set of laws named after him. The romans were also famous for codifying laws, as was napolean, the french emperor.
Though most of the countries today claim that they are ruled by law. The crucial question to ask is whether they have a formal code used as the blueprint to judge and to set up policies. For example, in Nigeria, they do have a written constitution that are ignored by one dictator after another. On the other hand, Great Britain, has never had a formal document of constitution, but has ruled by law for centuries. For much of their history, the English have limited monarchy, or the king and queen should obey the law.

JimmyCruz

memo:
What is democracy?
there is no word of democracy in the declaration of independence. You might be shocked at that? How could that be? Our government is a democracy!
Democracy, originated from greeks, demo means people and kracia means the power. The meaning of democracy is no doubt a form of government that gives people the power to rule. But how, when and to which people? The answer varies from time to time.
The founders of america hate the word democracy. Madison J mentioned in federalists that instability, injustice and confusion have in truth been the mortal diseases under which most of the government around world perished. Lead by people might lead to disorder and disruption. Anyhow, democracy sounds superior to monarchy or other form of government.
Democracies value rule of law. The ancient greeks respect the law of nature. A notion that the society should obey the ethical principles found in nature. The greeks are famous for practicing direct democracy. Under which all citizens would gather together to discuss whether a decision or policy should be applied and make decision by majority rule. In ancient greeks, only free men were regarded the citizens, so it is limited democracy. Nowadays, in new england, all citizens of voting age can have a say in the town meetings to decide the passage of any policy.
But how could direct democracy be applied in a larger range and bigger size of population? Generally, the answer is no possible. In its place, the founders put indirect or representative democracy. Representatives are selected by the people to make decision for them. Representatives are work in a manageable size to run the business of government. Representatives are those who are more knowlegeagble or wealthier that they are responsible for other citizens. Thus, republic or democracy are used interchangeably nowadays. One widespread criticism of representative democracy is that those representatives would think of themselves as elite and no longer consult ordinary citizens. In this way, even though they are selected, the true representativeness is gone.
Another form of democracy is democratic centralism, first put forward by lenin. Lenin thought that though every citizens is born equal, a small vanguard of the revolution is necessary to guide the people and establish the order. So a small group of leader make decision for others, based on their perception of what people want and think.

JimmyCruz

回忆：什么是民主体制下需要权衡的价值观？
Memo:
Liberty and equality:
these words represent the basic values of democratic political systems, including US. Rule by the king has often brought peace and order, but at the cost of personal freedoms. Democratic values support the belief that an orderly society can exist while the freedom preserved. But the order and freedom must be balanced.
Enlightenment
Philosophes started to question the authority’s right to rule in 18th century. In enlightenment, a movement that questioned the king of monarch to rule, the philosophes answered the question that what gives the king’s right to rule? They acknowledged the importance of order, influenced by the medieval chaos. Haven from invaders and attackers were necessary for survival, so weak people allied with stronger ones, and kings came to rule who provided protection would in return for work and allegience from his subjects.
Later, the philosophes again attacked the absolute right for monarch to rule. John locke, thought the right to rule comes from the consent of the governed. Montesquieu, marked the system of three branches that checked one another’s power. Rousseau believed that the community might be more justly governed by general will or the majority rule of the citizens.

JimmyCruz

Imagine a society that people are totally free to do anything. How long would it take for chaos to set in? Order implies a loss of freedom if people are to survive. How far could order go? Democratic political systems cherish the individual freedom and believe that laws should not be repressive; little order can be sacrificed in the name of liberty. So one kind of balance is between order and liberty.
Another kind of balance is the compromise between equality and liberty. Complete freedom might lead to inequality. Imagine someone strong or clever would outrun most of the others in terms of assets or power, and someone is bound to dominate. Hence, the line should have been drawn before an individual seizes the power that greatly restricts others’s liberty.
Shouldn’t government help preserve some equality? But if they overemphasize equality, wont they restrict others liberty? For instance, government can tax richer ones more than poor individuals. By doing so, is the government hamper the richer’s liberty to strive for better economic achievement? The balance between the equality and liberty is a cornerstone of democratic political system.