Now, after the government released the news that "raising pigs is prohibited in 2009", many people are talking. Some people even asked, "Will there be pigs to eat after that?" We don't have to worry about this problem, because since the government has put forward this policy, there are certainly better ways to give people pork to eat.

Although I'm not worried, what should farmers do by raising pigs for a living? How can I support my family in the future? This is the biggest headache. The government cuts other people's expenses. Of course, people don't agree with this policy, and even some bold people resist it. Triggering democratic protests is not good for both sides, and the government doesn't know what to do. But I think from my point of view, there are good and bad reasons for banning pig raising in 2009, and we can't say who is right or wrong. On the one hand, a lot of pork is harmful to people's health, so the government is also for the benefit of the people and starting from people's health. But also to ensure people's health. On the one hand, there are still many people who raise pigs for a living. Didn't the pig ban cut them off? This is cruel! In the future, there will be more unemployed people who can't find jobs that suit them, which will also do harm to society.

Therefore, when discussing the topic of prohibiting raising pigs, everyone has their own views. Some people think it's good, others think it's bad. This does not mean who is right or wrong. Let's just say that everyone has their own reasons. I think the government introduced this policy for people's health. If this policy is not introduced, some hooligans will take the opportunity to secretly buy some unverified pork and earn some profits from it, but those who buy these pork will suffer, and the hooligans' tricks will succeed. He was cheated again. Not only can they not buy fresh pork, but they are also taken in by swindlers. What a representative example this is! Of course, we also need to be vigilant so that we can buy fresh pork without being cheated.

All the above events explain why the government banned raising pigs in 2009, and people should also consider the government's situation. We should consider this problem from two aspects.

What we really care about is not whether the "pig ban" in Dongguan is reasonable in entity, but the procedural justice of this decision. Although procedural justice does not necessarily realize substantive justice, it is at least the institutional guarantee of substantive justice. Recently, a total ban on raising pigs in Dongguan has aroused heated discussion throughout the country. Judging from the limited channels that the author has contacted, it seems that there are many negative comments; Most commentators have questioned that the pig ban is absurd and has limited effect on achieving the environmental protection goal claimed by the local government. Many people have sympathy and concern for pig farmers in Dongguan. The national effect of local events is very interesting. Everyone is very concerned about the fate of pig farmers in Dongguan, but local complaints in Dongguan are rarely heard, at least there is no representative opinion. Obviously, Dongguan locals are more concerned about whether they can engage in pig farming locally than foreigners, but why can't they be heard? As long as you pay a little attention, you will find that this phenomenon is by no means a case. In fact, at least since the Sun Zhigang incident, the national effect of local events has become the mainstream mode to solve some local problems in China. Of course, there is nothing wrong with this model itself. Although "China" is very big, it is actually made up of various places, and local events are also national events, so it is natural for the people of the whole country to pay attention to pig raising in Dongguan. A few years ago, some Beijingers applied to the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) to review the legality of the pre-marital examination regulations in Heilongjiang, but no one thought they were "meddling". In a civil society with free speech, the rational basis of government policies should be tested not only by local people, but also by "outsiders" all over the country. More criticism and questioning will make local policies more cautious. In this sense, we should really be glad that China is big, because the bigger the country, the more people care about local affairs, and the broader, more diverse and more active the stage of public forums will be. What's more, in the absence of active participation of local citizens for various reasons, the concern of the state can be regarded as a way to solve local problems.