What are some short stories about "fairness and equity"?

One story comes from an article by the famous American financial writer Gordon in American Heritage magazine. Through the legend of the breaking of bread, Gordon traces the origins of the Western rules that guarantee fair distribution. It is said that in the ancient Roman army, soldiers were rationed a loaf of bread for the entire day. In the beginning, the task of cutting and distributing the bread was taken up by the chief alone, so the chief would often cut off the biggest piece for himself, and then decide the size of the bread to be distributed according to the closeness of relationship. There were many cases of internal conflicts and even infighting within the army due to unfair distribution. In order to prevent fights over food, the Romans quickly found an excellent regulation: when two soldiers got a piece of bread, the rule required one soldier to divide it, while the other soldier came out first to choose the half that belonged to him. Under this rule, the soldier who divides the bread can only maximize an even distribution out of self-interest. Gordon argues that this type of law is formulated from the perspective of each individual's self-interest in order to make his or her behavior fair and reasonable. The law of self-interest takes into account the interests of each individual, not the interests of a one-man group, not the interests of those who make and enforce these laws.

The rules of bread-splitting developed by the ancient Roman army were, in theory, guaranteed by the system, and were therefore more binding and more equitable, but they presupposed that each party must have reciprocal strength and the ability to punish the other when it found that the other party did not abide by the rules. Therefore, this relies on the other to realize self-discipline approach, known as the "fox rule" or "Roman rules".

As a result, it was also a rule enforced among the strong, because the weak did not have the power to join the game. The increasing concentration of wealth in Western societies to this day in the hands of those with power and capital is due to the inherent genetic defects of this rule.

When Kong Rong was four years old, his father asked him to divide a bag of pears among his family, and Kong Rong gave the largest to his grandparents, the larger ones to his parents, the others to his younger siblings, and the smallest to himself. The reason why this simple story has been passed down to this day is not just to teach children humility and politeness, but also reflects the basic idea of traditional Chinese about fair distribution: the order of fair distribution is to take care of the old and the young, honoring the inferiority and the superiority of the young, reflecting the traditional morality and the person who presides over the distribution should also be a moral person like Kong Rong.

In contrast, China's fair distribution, which relies on ethical and moral constraints, is very unstable.

More often than not, those in power at the start of a dynasty are able to keep their moral compass, but not as time goes on.

This time, it has a system of correction: a change of dynasty. Often the replacement is under the banner of "acting on behalf of heaven" - I am trying to restore the "way" to overthrow the previous ruler, and the "dynastic cycle rate The "dynastic cycle rate" is how it came about.

At the same time, China's move towards a modern industrial and commercial civilization was hampered by the shame of talking about "profit" at all levels of society.

On the whole, relying on moral constraints to ensure fair distribution, the cost of social supervision is low; the rules of distribution, which are based on "benevolence", have made "suppressing the strong and supporting the weak" the dominant social consciousness in traditional China.

It is also this system of ensuring fairness that has sustained Chinese civilization as the only unbroken civilization in the world for thousands of years.