怎樣進行政治討論之二:認清事實

無獨有偶,Paul Krugman跟我在說同一件事。金融監管違反了所謂的「自由」,但它是對粗暴原始的自由的一種必要限制:

First of all, bank regulation is important even in the absence of bailouts. Don’t trust me, trust Adam Smith. Scotland invented modern banking; it also invented modern banking crises; and Smith, having witnessed such a crisis, favored bank regulations, declaring that

Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respect a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as or the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed.

我翻譯最重要的一段:“But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as or the most despotical”.

「但當少部分人去行使他們的自然自由,而這種自由的行使會損害社會整體安全的時候,這些自由應該要,也在事實上,受到所有政府的法律的約束;對最自由或是最專制的政府而言都是一樣。」

現今大部分自由主義者的一個問題是,他們的思想停留在19世紀末期的資本主義(殖民地資本主義)裏面,對社會科學的發展沒有任何跟進,連主義的開山祖宗的文字也沒有仔細閲讀過。因此主義往往演變成一種宗教。

http://wp.me/pXZbk-Ad

This entry was posted in 社會心理, 科學知識, 經濟學, 政治與經濟, 歷史 and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 則回應給 怎樣進行政治討論之二:認清事實

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / 變更 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / 變更 )

Facebook照片

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / 變更 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / 變更 )

連結到 %s