Serving the people vs serving the state: what is the right path of modern governance

Avatar photo
Daohe · Jun 10, 2025
Why do nations exist? Not for slogans, not for borders, and not for GDP numbers. The true purpose of a nation is to protect basic human rights, uphold the dignity of its people, and improve their quality of life. If a country appears powerful but its people are suffering—if there is national pride but public […]

Why do nations exist?
Not for slogans, not for borders, and not for GDP numbers.

The true purpose of a nation is to protect basic human rights, uphold the dignity of its people, and improve their quality of life.

If a country appears powerful but its people are suffering—if there is national pride but public anxiety—then that country is just an empty shell. It may look strong on the outside, but inside it is full of deep problems.

That is why it is essential to understand the difference between “serving the state” and “serving the people.” A modern government must see serving its people as the only true source of legitimacy. Only then can a nation remain stable, fair, and truly prosperous.

I. The conflict between serving the state and serving the people

“Serving the state” usually means focusing on national goals like economic growth, military power, global influence, and national security.

“Serving the people” means protecting individual rights—fair income, stable jobs, affordable housing and healthcare, free speech, fair justice, public welfare, dignity, and political participation.

These two goals should go hand in hand. But in practice, especially in how governments use power, there are often structural conflicts:

  • Resource conflict: Governments spend more on big projects or military and choose to cut public welfare spending.
  • Unequal participation in decision making: National strategies are decided by a small elite; ordinary citizens have little say.
  • Different values: Power wants control and unity, while people need freedom and choices.
  • Unfair benefits: “National interest” often serves the rich and powerful, while citizens are left behind.

These deep conflicts are the biggest problem with “state-centered” policies—and the real threat to the people.

II. What are the risks of “state-centered” policies?

Some governments, in order to protect national image or appear strong in foreign affairs, choose to sacrifice the rights and wellbeing of their citizens. Over time, this leads to seven major risks, with consequences that are hard to ignore:

1. Collapse of social trust

Citizens lose trust in the government, the legal system, and institutions. As a result, policies lose effectiveness.

2. Widening wealth gap

Powerful capital groups take advantage of national strategies to control resources. Wealth becomes concentrated among the few, while the poor get poorer.

3. Crisis of political legitimacy

Public confidence in the government fades. People no longer believe in the system, and the state’s legitimacy begins to erode.

4. Rising social anxiety

High costs of housing, jobs, education, healthcare, and retirement create widespread stress and insecurity.

5. Rigid policymaking

Decision-making is dominated by a small elite. Without public input or checks and balances, policies become outdated and tensions build up.

6. Backlash from media control

When free speech is suppressed, public frustration grows beneath the surface, creating a false sense of peace while unrest brews underneath.

7. Decline in long-term national strength

A society without freedom and fairness loses its creativity, innovation, and energy. In the long run, the nation’s global competitiveness will suffer.

III. Core principles of a people-centered government

A truly modern government must be guided by four key principles that serve the people:

1. People’s wellbeing comes first

Government spending must first support basic needs—healthcare, education, housing, jobs, and retirement.

2. Protection of rights

The constitution must guarantee citizens’ rights to know, to speak, to participate, and to hold power accountable.

3. Transparency in public finances

Budgets, spending, and government decisions must be fully transparent. Taxpayers have the right to monitor how public funds are used.

4. Limits on state power

State power must be bound by law, used only for the public good—not for personal gain, private interest, or political inheritance.

IV. A balanced structure for national governance

To build a fair and effective system, We need three-pillar governance model with dual-level counterbalance.

Power Holder Core Role Supervision Mechanism
State government National security, fiscal control, legislation, diplomacy Supervised by citizens, media, and parliament
Civil society Industry regulation, community affairs, NGOs Bound by law, holds the right to join public decision-making
Individual citizens Voting, oversight, right to information Directly supervises state power, takes part in governance

V. Reforming the civil service: new standards for a modern era

A truly modern civil servant must meet the following criteria:

1. Public-first mindset: serve the interests of taxpayers, not just follow orders from above.

2. Performance-based evaluation: measured by public well-being, citizen satisfaction, and policy implementation results.

3. Lifetime accountability: retirement does not exempt one from responsibility for past actions.

4. Public reporting system: regularly report achievements and problems to citizens, and accept public questioning.

5. Separation from business interests: strict bans on collusion with capital groups; assets must be declared and transparent.

VI. A mature model of tripartite governance

In a fully modern state, governance should evolve to the following form:

  • Reduced government scope: government is limited to macro coordination, national defense, foreign affairs, justice, and legislation.
  • Full autonomy of social organizations: sectors like healthcare, education, academia, and community affairs are managed by self-governing bodies.
  • Comprehensive citizen oversight: establish citizen assemblies, policy referendum days, and annual government satisfaction voting.
  • Public budgeting under citizen control: national budgets must be approved by a citizen assembly each year.
  • Transparent public projects: major national projects require open proposals, public opinion surveys, and third-party evaluations.

VII. Conclusion: serving the people is the foundation of the state

A country may appear strong, but if its people suffer, that strength is hollow and unstable.

A country may seem powerful, but without public trust, it cannot last.

The only rightful path to national governance is to build a people-centered modern system—rooted in citizen rights, focused on quality of life, guided by people-first budgeting, protected by limited and transparent power, and secured through open and participatory institutions.

Only then can a nation achieve lasting peace, public trust, and sustainable development.

Share this article:
LEARN MORE

Continue Reading

末法时代的邪师乱纪

Yicheng · May 3, 2025

你所顶礼的大师,也许是个祸根。 开篇偈: 南无本师释迦牟尼佛,千生度苦愿无尽; 奈何末法乱象出,魔现僧形惑众心; 菩萨本怀成戏言,法座已成贪利场。 顶礼若错,慧眼不明,一念偏邪,百劫难回。 一、邪师之度:失佛之本愿 佛者,觉也,佛之度人,非制人也;度人之要,在开智慧、断烦恼、得自在、成菩提。 然今之个别法师,披袈裟、坐高堂,貌似弘法,实为制人之术。他所行者,不是令众生得自在,乃是教众生更“能忍”、更“会屈”、更“知分寸”,使其在苦中不求出离,在屈辱中甘为牛马。 《大智度论》曰:法者,舟筏也,非岸也。若执法而不达彼岸,是执舟而不度,徒为困者耳。 这些人将佛法作为社会稳定的安慰剂,而非心灵觉醒之光。他们讲“知足常乐”,却不讲“众生平等”;讲“业报自受”,却不讲“慈悲拔苦”;讲“忍辱负重”,却闭口不谈“发大勇猛愿度一切苦难”。 是故,其“法度人”,实非佛度人也。佛以法为桥梁,而非锁链;以智为灯,而非迷雾。若法使人沉睡而非觉醒,是法失其本愿;若度成了奴役,是行非佛行也。 二、“戒定慧”≠“忍定慧” 昔日佛陀,于鹿野苑初转法轮,开示苦集灭道,以四谛导归八正道,以八正道归于三学:戒、定、慧。 “戒”止恶防非,“定”摄心不乱,“慧”照破无明。三者如车之三轮,缺一则道不能行。 但今某等佛子,化“戒”为“忍”,失其威仪;化“定”为“逃”,失其坚固;化“慧”为“顺”,失其锋芒。自言已“大觉”,实则是为不作为找理由,为不进取立招牌。 其所谓“忍定慧”,乃是驯顺之法,是萎靡之术,是懦夫之遮羞布。 《维摩诘经》曰:虽处俗世,不染于尘,此为真修。 何谓真“忍”?是地藏菩萨“地狱不空誓不成佛”的忍,是观世音“千处祈求千处应”的忍。 此忍,是以悲愿为基,是为众生忍,不是为自保忍;是为真理忍,不是为苟安忍。 今人却借“忍”之名,教人无声、无争、无言,麻痹其意志,削弱其思辨,使其安于现状,堕入群愚,失却了佛子之勇猛精进。 三、避世静修:是真修还是道义之逃? 大乘佛教之精义,不在于山林寂寞,而在于娑婆度苦。菩萨不住涅槃,倒驾慈航;罗汉止于自利,菩萨则弘愿无尽。 然今之“法者”辈,或聚众闭关,或宣言“远离红尘”,声称为清净而修行,为自省而闭关。但观其所言所行,不过是“避世而避义”,是“明哲保身”之道,是“苟安其身”之谋。 《大藏经》言,菩萨见他苦时即是菩萨极苦,见他乐时即是菩萨大乐,以是故菩萨恒为利他。 他们不愿触碰现实,不愿参与社会构建,不愿对众生苦难作回应。他们闭关之中,吟风弄月,论道说禅,却对凡间烈火视若无睹;他们避世之术,不过是懦弱的美化,是对责任的抛弃,是对正法的放弃。 待世人流血牺牲,真勇士倒下之后,他们又跳出来,对着墓碑念偈颂,说“他们修行不圆”,说“未悟无常”。实为道义上的懦夫,道德上的背叛者,而非什么“世外高人”。 四、贪业装饰的“功德庙” 末法之世,有人以佛之名行利己之实,以庙宇为躯壳,以香火为金融。其所兴之庙,非为弘法利生,乃为聚财造势;其所募之款,非为供养三宝,乃为装点声名,修饰权位。 每日鼓吹:“供佛得福,建庙转运”,或曰“护持道场,福寿无量”,然福者何所来? 福应植于行善,根于利他,若因布施而贪报,是布施而造业也。 《楞严经》曰:我法本来清净,非因供养而生功德。若贪布施功德,乃世间福,不出三界。 更有甚者,假借“上师”“高僧”名号,行灌顶之术,卖甘露之丸,募虚妄之财,诱人供养不休。圣者之像,成了欺诈的招牌;功德之语,成了布网的诱饵。 此类“佛子”,非但堕落自心,更败坏众信,令人远佛法、厌修行、疑正法、毁三宝。其罪甚重,难以言尽。 五、末法乱象根源:虚名、制度与俗化之祸 佛陀入灭后,正法五百年,像法千年,末法万年。正法以修行为要,像法以仪轨为重,末法则仅存名相,实已偏邪。 何以至此?盖因众生贪名趋利,法师迷权逐俗,制度无护法之力,教育无戒定之根,社会崇表象,丧本心。 今日之僧团,多未受戒,或受戒而不守;多不学律,或学而不持。讲经者不知经意,弘法者不行法行。制度失衡,僧俗不分;寺院商业,佛事成市。 所谓“护法”,不过护权护利;所谓“修行”,不过修辞修饰。 《法华经》曰,末世法灭之时,诸恶比丘,贪着五欲,言我得道。 又加传媒兴盛,名利熏天,凡人皆慕高名,愚者皆顶“大师”。于是法师比权贵,寺庙比商场,谁能言慧、能说“心灵鸡汤”,谁便能得香火不断、供养不息。 根未固,叶必枯。佛法未亡于外道,先亡于假佛子;众生未毁于恶人,先毁于妄信。 六、谁在顶礼?谁在沉沦?信众的集体愚迷 人之顶礼者,其实即其心中所仰之“理想人”。当今社会失却道义方向,心灵无所依托,便将“修行人”幻想为圣人,把穿袈裟的等同于得道者。于是,所谓“大师”便应运而生,信众愈多,供养愈盛。 信众何以愚迷?因无知;何以无知?因教育失败,道义不彰。 若不教人独立思考,只教顺从,不教慈悲智慧,只教烧香布施,则其心无明,顶礼不问是非。 佛教本讲“依法不依人”,然今之信徒,皆“依人不依法”,名号响者即为真理代表。甚至有人说:“只要上师讲,哪怕违法也信。”此言一出,正法已死。 《楞伽经》云:“一切众生,从无明起妄见,执着我相人相众生相寿者相。” 顶礼若错,祸起萧墙。错拜一人,迷误一生;错信一派,覆灭一方正法。 众生不自察,是非不辨,实为沉沦之源。 七、重返大愿大行,方为真佛子 佛门非懦弱之地,菩萨道非退避之径。真正佛子,当具五心:信心、慈心、悲心、智心、勇心。 信者,信佛、信法、信众生皆有佛性;慈者,无条件爱护一切众生;悲者,见苦即拔,不忍旁观;智者,照破诸相,不被假象迷惑;勇者,入地狱救苦,不住小乐。 若无勇猛精进,修行便如枯井;若无大悲大愿,菩提道成妄谈。 佛教四弘誓愿首曰:“众生无边誓愿度。”非度己也,乃度一切。是以菩萨若见苦不救,称何为佛子?若明真理而不语,称何为传灯? […]

何为真善?

何为真善?

Master Wonder · Apr 30, 2025

世间常以“善恶”二元对立为评判是非的基础,但在修行之路上,若不能洞悉“善”的层次与根本,便容易造恶而不自知。看似仁慈,实则缠缚;看似无害,实则助恶;看似光明,实则遮蔽了通向真正善的大道之门。 一、没有生来的善良,也没有生来的邪恶 从古至今,人们总喜欢讨论人的本性是善良还是邪恶。 荀子提出的“性恶论”认为,人类生来就是自私的,追求个人利益和欲望,只有通过教育和外界的规范才能引导人走向道德与善良。 与此相对的,是“人之初,性本善”的观点,这句经典语句出自《三字经》,它强调了人类天生具备善良的本性。 但其实,人之初,并非纯然善,也非纯然恶,没有任何定论,而是含藏着诸多因缘、无明、习气、愿力与无限的可能性。 没有天生的善人,也没有天生的恶人。正因如此,每个人都需要不断修行以提升自身的修养,种下善因,避免恶因恶果。 《楞伽经》中云:“心如画师,能画五阴。”我们的起心动念,其实在无形中决定了善恶的显现,而非某种固定不变的本性。 修行的第一步,便是认识到:善恶非天定,乃因习而生,因识而化。 “知恶明善”,不是简单的道德选择,而是穿透轮回错觉、拨开分别念网、觉察动机之根的觉悟过程,以及自发的、主观能动的选择。 二、自善之假:幻象中的“好人”执念 许多修行者常说:“我心善良。” 但若追问下去,其善良是否基于清净之心?是否无我无执?是否生于慈悲,归于智慧? 多数情况,并非如此。人们所谓的“善”,多半出于以下几种心中幻象: 这些都是“我执”的变形,是一种“幻善”。 佛家讲“法无我”,而这类善,背后却都藏着一个庞大的“我”:我的利益,我的安心,我的形象,我的逃避。 这种“善”,其实并未出离轮回,甚至可能加固轮回。它无法带领众生出苦,也无法自身解脱。 三、真善之道:离欲而清净,为众而光明 什么才是真正的善? 真正的善,不是对自我感受的愉悦,也不是表面行为的温和,而是通向一切众生解脱、幸福与光明的那条道。 佛法言:“一切相皆虚妄。” 若所行之善,执着于相、贪图于果、计较于得失,便是幻相之善。 而若所行之善,超越形象、动机清净、为众生而不为己,则是接近“真善”。 真善之特征: 这是一种带方向性的善,是通向正觉、正行、正果的善,是一条大路,不只是某个当下的正确或善良,而是时刻的觉察与行动。 四、完整的善:通向众生幸福的大道 你若问:“完整的善,究竟是什么?” 答曰:是那一条能真实、彻底、长远地让众生得到幸福、减少痛苦、走向觉悟的大道。 这种善不执相,不求回报,不止于一时的善举,而是建立在智慧、慈悲、愿力和离欲基础上的清净之行。 因此: 结语:愿诸行者,超越自善,行真善,证圆满 自善,是人世之幻。 真善,是道途之光。 愿修行者能觉察幻善之局,破除“我是善人”的执念,回归本心,通向真正的慈悲之道,智慧之道,清净之道。 不为己喜,不为人赞, 唯为众生,行此大愿。 善非表象,善即道源; 行在真处,即是佛田。 愿你所行之善,能照亮自己,也照亮世间。 附: 真善之偈:破我善,入无我道 世人多行我所善, 不觉幻影遮真颜。 慈悲若系虚我缚, 善举终成业火燃。 若知一切皆如梦, 当下起行勿执缠。 为众离苦心不住, 此中才是大悲源。 非我非人非我愿, 但令众生得安然。 行深般若明空性, 真善无相映法天。 善的三重境界图表 以下图表帮助修行者辨别:我们每日所行之“善”,处于哪个层次? […]

read more

Related Content

Voting vs. decision-making: Understanding their roles in civilization
Voting vs. decision-making: Understanding their roles in civilization
Avatar photo
Kishou · Jun 11, 2025
This article explores the fundamental difference between voting and decision-making. Voting reflects the distribution of power and interests, while decision-making requires a small group of people with strategic competence. When these two are blurred, decisions risk becoming shortsighted and driven by emotion, leading to power imbalances that ultimately weaken social governance.
Inside the “cage trap”: how authoritarian governments maintain control
Avatar photo
Yicheng · Dec 19, 2024
If a regime or government adopts the “Cage Trap” policy, it essentially acts as an extreme mechanism to safeguard privilege and protect class interests. This article offers a multidimensional exploration of this concept. The “Cage Trap” refers to government policies that impose strict controls on citizens’ freedoms, often justified in the name of national security […]
Understanding the culture and civilization of a nation
Understanding the culture and civilization of a nation
Avatar photo
Yicheng · Feb 27, 2025
Culture and civilization are the two core forces driving a nation’s development. Culture shapes the character of a nation, while civilization reflects the depth of its moral progress and the path it takes toward higher ethical ideals. By exploring the relationship between culture and civilization, we can gain a deeper understanding of the inner forces […]
4 Why’s Diversity is Key for Better Global Democracies
Avatar photo
Kishou · Dec 24, 2024
After witnessing the horrors of totalitarian regimes in the 20th century and the deep critiques of capitalist systems in the 21st, post-2024 democratic governments will inevitably take on a new form. They will no longer replicate the military or social autocracies of the past, nor will they serve as mere instruments of economic and financial […]
View All Content