民間記者是報導的欄位, 討論與意見表達, 請移玉步於學問或健筆等. 另編輯部太忙, 無暇回應, 日後再談.

我不知道這篇文不是你的著作, 請見諒.

我一直覺得student是不錯的辯論對手，雖然我不同意他／她的大部份觀點，但獨立媒體應該歡迎不同意見對辯的．

至於拙文是否讓人有深刻的反思？與梁文道的文章比較誰較好？這便只有讓讀者評價了，我只想說，拙文與梁文道的文章的類型不同，各有其功能，梁文也寫得非常好（其實是我貼的），如果有編輯建議成為焦點，我也不會反對．

至於拙文的意義，我想還是有的，今天"民間監察世貿聯盟"批評警方的做法，部份資料便是來自這篇文章，而當媒體只關心示威者的（潛在）「暴力」，卻很少思考警察的明顯及隱藏的暴力，拙文還是有意義的．

謝謝你關心in-media的編輯方針，我想，編輯的過程是永遠值得爭辯的話題．

不過，希望student不要把所有社會運動的投入都簡單視為"感性"的東西，而又把感性視為沒有反思價值的東西．

因為我是讀 rss 而直接點入這篇文章的, 在回應時沒有看清楚欄位是[民間記者], 只看見是一篇很有觀點的文章, 以為可以論點來論點住, 所以就回應了兩點.

以後大家提醒這是[民間記者]欄, 我又誤會這是一篇引述或報導. 我一連誤會了兩次.

想問問麥當勞，農民的問題是出於農民過剩這個論點，是如何得出來的？

被指過剩並要轉職的，概不會是美國之類佔了優勢的農民，而應該是那些在加入WTO遊戲後，難以靠農業維生的農民吧？如中國的、如南韓的。以此推論，在淘汰及轉職後，你是否認為應該是由那些在國際市場上佔了強勢的農產地(背後原因且略)，成為全球基本糧食的供應者？

Let me reply Dead Cat first because his/her comment seems most interesting to me. (I hope Dead Cat does not find the word "interesting" too insulting here.)

++Your 三贏的方案 w/ "free trade"+ "其他的福利補償" --can welfare help the broke farmers out of poverty, when it is created by WTO after their rice market is FORCED to open into this imbalance trade situation under "free trade"? I am not sure, but I only know policies favouring your own countries' industry will be condemend by the WTO as 'unfair trade'.++

Since you are not sure, I do not feel it necessary to make a reply here. But I do want to ask what "policies" you are talking here? If they refer to trade barriers, yes, I think so. But certainly not all social welfare programs (directed to help farmers) fall under that rubric.

++If you say 再培訓, does it mean that their present mode of farming is 'backward' so they need to be trained to grow crops with 'advanced' method like the USA does, that'll make their crops more competitive? ++

You stretched my meaning too far. Retraining can refer to gaining other work skills. One may say, "why do they need to be retrained?" Because they may go unemployed otherwise. Their unemployment is not only a cost to themselves, but also a loss to society. Society (slash government) should make every individual fully exert her potential. Retraining (or like our education at school) offers such an opportunity.

++If the USA crops dumped to them is cheaper than production cost bc of subsidy, how far can Koreans and other farmers go to lower price to 'compete' and still be able to make a living?++

This is why I do not like subsidies, esp. those given by rich countries.

++by anti WTO I don't mean 'no trade', but anti WTO's compulsory force open other nation's markets etc. Havn't people said these points MANY times here already?++

I also said many times here that I am fully aware of the problems of WTO, including some of those that you mentioned.

++You are exactly right in saying that those European smaller countries are also not rich, because in fact, WTO is ruining small farmers all over the world.++

Show me the evidence how WTO is ruining small farmers all over the world. By evidence, I mean statistical evidence (anecdotal evidence counts, but generalizability remains questionable). Look, all big farmers / farming corps in the West started with a small production (i.e. as small farmers). They are not gigantic by nature. Then, thanks to the subsidies doled out by their government, they grew in size and became those commerical farming corporations. So at least for some small farmers, trade, if not WTO, helped them a lot - at least helped them become transnational farming corporations. I am worrying that if you let those South Korean farmers get trade-related subsidies from their government today, we will see some more transnational farming corps tomorrow - with Korean names.

++I remember reading someone wrote here, that the present form of neo-liberalism + globalisation is actually making the world not divided into rich / poor nations, but a transnational rich & poor w/ an increasing distance, so multi-national corporates are the "rich", and there're poor workers/farmers all over the world. And we are against such polarization, REGARDLESS of the sufferer's country is 1st or 3rd world.++

I am surprised if what you meant is that you learnt this process only from here. Karl Marx has already shown the world this whole process more than a hundred years ago.

If you hate WTO because you hate capitalism, fine. I fully respect those individuals (like how I admire Long Hair). I am just annoyed by people who fuck WTO, but fail to see (or mention) that much of the problem that they talk about is the ill of capitalism.

So what I am saying here is that for those who are at heart anti-capitalism, please speak it up and let others know that you are not just taking on the small guy (WTO etc), but also the big guy (the entire capitalist edifice). And for those who agree with capitalism (in the broad sense), please stop using those broad critiques of capitalism to make your anti-WTO case (broad critiques include those against competitions). In a nutshell, this is a matter of integrity.

++And, I (not only me) somehow foresee our Chinese farmers will/are suffer(ing) the same fate as the Korean farmers now. So in cheering for the Koreans we are cheering for the 'global' poor as well.++

I am afraid to say that you fail to see the tradeoff here. When you help those Korean farmers by continuing to subsidize them, Chinese farmers (or other countries') would be more likely to suffer because they may not be able to sell their farm products to Korea.

++Wow it would be a delight if Inmedia can 「...以不同角度深化社會、政治及文化議題，促進社會關懷，開拓人文知識，深化思想空間，...以建立成熟並富批判性的思想氛圍，探討進步的社會實踐方式」 in EVERY essay!!!!!++

Wow, did I say that Inmedia has to accomplish these lofty goals in EVERY essay? I would also be delighted if they can make this happen, of course. That said, I just wanted the editorial board to be aware of the discomforting tendency that I myself found in inmediahk.

++Many ppl here said MANY times, that cancel out unfair subsidy is NOT the only way of solving the problem. Many people here are challenging the fundamentals of WTO's so called "free trade" (this name is so sweet), that ,both by "market forces", making poorer nations sell their crops and labour cheaply, and by political means force open other's markets and interfere with internal policies. Unfair subsidy makes things worse. But even if that's cancelled, if in perfectly "FREE" trade without barrier, MAKING super poor nations to COMPETE with rich nations in a NAKED market is the most UNFAIR thing in the world!++

agree no more. This is why I do not want those Korean farmers to get subsidies.

++"究竟大家是為了公義而抗爭，還是為了自我感覺良好（如令自己覺得是『弱勢社群』的救星）而抗爭呢？" -
Readers, raise your hand if you feel INSULTED by this comment. (or you guys are so USED to something like that?)++

Being insulted or not is a subjective feeling. People often feel insulted when they are told that they are wrong (like losing in a debate is quite insulting to many). For instance, I can raise my hand here because I feel insulted by your criticisms. But, at least to me, what is the point of raising my hand and yell, " I am insulted!!!!"? Rather, what I should do is to take your words and think and respond with reason.

So what is crucial here is not that whether my comments make others feel insulted, but whether my comments constitute any personal offenses like discriminations based on race, gender, religion, political affiliation, etc.

But no, the question that I asked is no discriminations based on the above things.

++This line is no more intelligent than roadside comments of any protest: "佢地收左錢(出來行)之嗎,哈哈". ++

I never claim that my comment is more intelligent than the roadside comment above. But it seems that you implicitly assume that those protesters did not get paid for protesting. To me, this implicit assumption is quite misleading.

Why?

Let us consider this example.

You serve as a juror in a murder case and you take bribe from the murderer and make a verdict of not guilty. Somehow I, your friend, learn what you have done. So I say to you,"究竟你是為了公義而判決，還是為了金錢而判決呢？" Probably you would be insulted by my words (despite the fact that you did take the bribe), but my words are perfectly relevant here (though may not be necessarily more intelligent than those roadside comments.)

Caveat: I am not stating that all activists are 為了自我感覺良好（如令自己覺得是『弱勢社群』的救星）而抗爭. This is why I make it a question, so that people can think about it themselves.

++If I use your logic, shd i say "你咁堅持同佢地拗, 係因為你想證明自己好口岩, 人地好蠢 + 自己讀左d經濟學就當係聖經"? (system generated message only, ha ha ha) ++

I never deny - in fact, I am happy to tell you - that I feel happy when I can convince others of what I think is right. Just like when I can convince my friends (who do not like democracy) the good things about democracy, I feel really delighted. But my pleasure does not come from knowing that others are stupid, just like your motivation of participating in social movements (I assume that you have) may not come from knowing that others are callous.

By the way, did I use any economic theory in this post? I think I can use some, but I chose not to because I hate throwing jargons/academic theories in others' face, which may make me feel better, but won't help me convince others.

I have no religion, so the Bible does not mean anything to me.