2004Edition>News Center>Life
             
     

    Ban on beggars 'dangerous to personal liberty'
    (Shanghai Star)
    Updated: 2004-02-09 09:31

    Recently some cities, such as Beijing and Suzhou, were said to be about to introduce city regulations forbidding the entry of beggars into certain areas and public places, like the subway or main streets.

    And Shanghai is watching. But these upcoming or potential regulations are already subject to criticism, viewed by quite a few Chinese commentators even as "dangerous to personal liberty" (see Southern Weekend, January 8).

    Yet it seems a little unfair for the government to take all the blame. What is it to have gone to great lengths to enact such a regulation which ends up in waves of criticisms? Sometimes those critical intellectuals are so annoying - they never cook but always taste and comment.

    But the reason why the commentators are talking this time may be because it is a ban on a particular class of people rather than on certain acts in public places. Take smoking for example: regulations are supposed to ban smoking in public places but they do not, and it is unreasonable to deny smokers entry to public places. Therefore, in the present case, it seems that it is the beggars themselves rather than the acts of begging which are disturbing and are not to be tolerated.

    It is true that the act of begging produces a kind of externality (a side-effect upon others). But many other acts produce externalities. The motor car you ride to work produces such externalities (I am expected to develop severe lung diseases in less than 10 years while the benefit of fast transportation is confined to you alone). And not all externalities must be regulated by the government. In this respect Ronald Coase has already adequately instructed us that private arrangements of rights may sometimes be more effective and desirable than government arrangements.

    Governments may take risks when making judgments on behalf of its citizens. It may take the blame not so much because it is less clever than its citizens, nor because it knows less than its citizens. It may take the blame because by making decisions for the benefit of all citizens it cannot avoid making judgments in the interest of a particular class of citizens, thus inevitably endangering the concept of fairness. The government, in the words of R. Dworkin, should treat all its citizens equally, instead.

    If every pedestrian hates beggars cadging off them, just let the pedestrians themselves refuse to indulge the beggars and, who knows, some may even like giving them money?. What's the effect of the government substituting its own judgement or its own preference for that of its citizens other than giving itself a heavy burden to bear? The government should act to ensure that its intervention is targeted at every kind of similar act rather than a particular kind, like begging in the present case.

    If a person can stop you in the subway and say that he or she is a volunteer for the Red Cross and asks if you would like to make some donation for a funding project or if another person can stop you in the street and says that he or she is from CNN and wants to have your opinion about, say, gays, then why cannot a beggar stop you and say that he or she wants some money from you? If the government prohibits begging, it should prohibit all these similar "harassing" acts instead of singling out begging.

    When two private rights clash, it is advisable for the government to allow the two private rights to settle the clash by themselves. If no settlement can be reached, then it is never too late for the government to intervene.

    But of course, as Coase tells us, the government should first define the preliminary rights of the private parties. In the case of begging, the authorities could merely stipulate that if any person harasses another in a public place to an unlawful extent or disturbs public order, whether this person is a TV reporter, a volunteer, or a beggar, then legal action and discipline will be taken against them.

    And actually this task has already been done, in existing laws and regulations.

     
      Today's Top News     Top Life News
     

    Bush: 'I expected to find the weapons'

     

       
     

    State inspections tighten flu stranglehold

     

       
     

    Beauty comes at a price-and risk

     

       
     

    Document seeks forgiveness for 'original sin'

     

       
     

    Police seek labour agents behind drowning

     

       
      Beauty comes at a price-and risk
       
      Music world gathers for Grammys
       
      New York Fashion Week kicks off
       
      Stage drama 'Vagina Monologues' banned in China
       
      China court hears homosexual prostitution case
       
      Cloned goat becomes great-grandmother
       
     
      Go to Another Section  
     
     
      Story Tools  
       
      Related Stories  
       
    Beggars can't be choosers of shelters
      Feature  
      Cai Qin evergreen: Once upon a time  
    Advertisement
             
    成人精品一区二区三区中文字幕 | 无码不卡亚洲成?人片| 无码人妻丰满熟妇区96| 亚洲精品无码久久不卡| 日日麻批免费40分钟无码| 最近中文字幕免费完整| 亚洲Av无码乱码在线播放| 无码GOGO大胆啪啪艺术| 四虎影视无码永久免费| 日韩久久久久久中文人妻| 日韩精品无码人妻一区二区三区| 亚洲va中文字幕无码久久| 中文精品人人永久免费| 婷婷综合久久中文字幕蜜桃三电影| 精品人妻系列无码天堂| 无码专区天天躁天天躁在线| 中文字幕无码久久精品青草| 色综合久久精品中文字幕首页| 亚洲人成影院在线无码观看| 精品无码人妻一区二区三区| 伊人久久综合精品无码AV专区| 天堂网www中文天堂在线| 中文字幕久久精品无码| 伊人久久无码精品中文字幕| 久久久久亚洲?V成人无码| 久久水蜜桃亚洲av无码精品麻豆| 一本一道av中文字幕无码| 成人麻豆日韩在无码视频| 日韩精品无码一区二区三区AV| 新版天堂资源中文8在线| 中文字幕无码人妻AAA片| 中文无码精品一区二区三区| 国产精品无码素人福利| 久久人妻少妇嫩草AV无码专区| 无码永久免费AV网站| 无码人妻一区二区三区在线| 亚洲成a人片在线观看无码专区| 中文字幕无码AV波多野吉衣| 亚洲韩国精品无码一区二区三区| 国产aⅴ无码专区亚洲av麻豆| 成人无码AV一区二区|