The notion that “the user pays” is something that many people take for granted. You might think that just sticking to that principle is enough to maintain fairness in society. Anyone who has the gall to go against it tends to be seen as a sponger who wants to eat and drink for free, and is despised by all.
This little phrase is a sort of condensed form of what a fair society is supposed to be, and it emits a glow of moral righteousness. No wonder people are always reciting it like a mantra.
In reality, “the user pays” only applies in particular situations, but it has been extended to be a universal law. It does not apply when the payee and the payer both know the rules of the game, and they form a consensus on that basis. In other words, the two sides enter into a contractual relationship. However, this contract can’t be applied willy-nilly to other people; it is by no means universally applicable.
Since this is a contractual relationship, the two sides need to decide between them how to define “user” and they have to work out how and how much the user will pay.
The reality in Taiwan today is that countless people are going hungry and shivering in the cold. At the same time, laws and regulations governing national health insurance and various kinds of subsidies keep changing. That being the case, the contractual relationship we are talking about, that “the user pays,” can’t be confined to a single formula. It can only be made to fit diverse people and situations if it is itself thoroughly diversified.
Some users are elderly, disabled, poor or sick. Such users should not be expected to pay the same rates as everyone else, or according to the same conditions. In fact they should sometimes not have to pay at all. Some people are denied the chance to be users. These outcasts should be brought back into the social contract.
There are also those who think of themselves as users and pay up accordingly, but the rates they pay are far from reasonable, and they are not properly informed. The path of human life is hard and split into many branches. The simple phrase “the user pays” cannot adequately provide for the interests of a diverse population, so we need to diversify this concept according to the situation.
At the same time, we should ask questions about the role of the user under the “user pays” principle and about the action of payment. For one thing, the social reality is that, in politics as well as in commerce, people are often asked to pay in the name of “the user pays,” but without knowing why they are paying, and sometimes without even realizing that they are paying at all. However, when ordinary people complain to politicians and businesses along the lines of “the user pays,” they don’t always get a satisfactory response.
Since we have been enlisted into this contractual relationship — willingly or otherwise — we have to pay careful attention to how the contract plays out for the parties involved.
A second reason for skepticism is on a rather more abstract level. We shouldn’t be so naive as to think that as long as we pay up the problem is solved, our conscience can be clear and social justice has been achieved. Nor should we think that the role of “user” is fixed and immutable or to be taken for granted. If we are not careful, we might slip out of the “user” category without knowing it, or we might find ourselves paying way over the odds just to be included among the users.
The popularity of the phrase “the user pays” is just another example of how moralistic and simplistic slogans can catch people’s attention, but that doesn’t mean that social justice is easy to achieve. The more boldly and confidently people pronounce the phrase, without giving it proper thought, the less consideration is given to the real meaning of social justice.
The way to social justice is not necessarily a clean-swept boulevard where efficiency rules. It may be twisting, confusing and even heretical. If we treat the notion that “the user pays” with due caution and mull it over, we will notice all the little side roads. Then we will see the reality, which is that many people are struggling to survive along those side ways, not sauntering along the straight and shady boulevard.
Chi Ta-wei is an assistant professor of Taiwanese literature at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS