Why does everything have to be one or the other?
Originally written in Chinese. Translated with AI, reviewed by Gary. Read the Chinese original →
Why does it feel like so many things today come down to picking one side?
Malaysian politics is like that. Support the ruling coalition and you must hate the opposition; support the opposition and you have to oppose everything. Social media is full of hate, labels and attacks, as if we're not discussing policy but discussing "the enemy".
The World Cup is the same.
I'm an England fan, as many friends know. What many don't know is that I've also followed Messi for more than twenty years, and I've always liked Cristiano Ronaldo too.
A few days ago England lost to Argentina, and of course I was disappointed. But disappointed or not, I still admire Messi, and I admire this Argentina team.
Why must we pick a side?
Why can't you support England and still appreciate Argentina? Why does liking Messi mean you must hate Ronaldo?
A World Cup comes once every four years, and it's exciting precisely because of the different styles, stories and legends. After a match, chatting with friends about tactics, players and coaches is, to me, what makes football really fun.
With Pinduoduo arriving in Malaysia recently, I'm seeing the same thing.
Many people's first reaction is: "That's it, local merchants are finished." "The government should ban it." "We must protect local businesses."
I'm not saying these worries are wrong.
But I keep wondering: have we become so used to picking sides that we forget to think?
Why can't we support local merchants and, at the same time, seriously study what Pinduoduo does better than us?
Why does every discussion have to become a fight to the death?
Liberty and equality, more like a seesaw
I've realised this isn't really about politics, football or business. It's a way of looking at the world.
Political philosophy has long had an interesting tension between liberty and equality.
Many people see them as opposites, but they're more like a seesaw.
A bit more liberty means more competition and usually faster innovation, but possibly wider gaps.
A bit more equality means more protection for everyone, but possibly less competition and lower efficiency.
There's no perfect answer. Every society is just searching for its own balance point.
The British philosopher Isaiah Berlin went further and split liberty into two kinds.
One is negative liberty.
Simply put: "don't stop me". The government shouldn't interfere with my choices; let me decide my own life.
The other is positive liberty.
Not leaving people alone, but giving everyone the capability to pursue freedom: education, healthcare, infrastructure, so more people get a chance to compete.
A truly mature society doesn't choose just one. It keeps looking for the balance between the two.
Protect competition, not any one company
Business is the same.
Adam Smith's invisible hand never meant the government should do nothing.
He meant the government should set rules, uphold the rule of law, prevent monopolies and fight fraud, so that everyone competes under the same rules.
What the government protects shouldn't be any particular company.
It should protect competition itself.
Because what really moves a society forward has never been protection. It's competition.
Why do I feel I can't survive the moment someone else comes in?
If a competitor burning money for a few months is enough to scare our whole industry, maybe the problem isn't competition. Maybe our business model was never as competitive as we thought.
I've written a lot, but I really only want to say one thing.
I hope I don't get held hostage by a camp.
I'm an England fan, and I can still admire Messi. I support certain political ideas, and I can still agree with good policies from other camps. I run a local business, and I can still learn from Pinduoduo instead of thinking first about how to keep it out.
In the end, I'm really just reminding myself.
Having a position is fine. But don't let it slowly take away your ability to appreciate others, learn from them, and correct yourself.
Maybe what's really worth pursuing in so many things was never just "who wins".
It's whether the system, through constant competition, exchange and learning, ends up making everyone better.