"What fearful prejudices were entertained against M. Say," says M. Ferrier,* "by that long train of distinguished2 administrators3, and that imposing4 phalanx of authors who dissented5 from his opinions; and M. Say was not unaware6 of it. Hear what he says:—'It has been alleged7 in support of errors of long standing8, that there must have been some foundation for ideas which have been adopted by all nations. Ought we not to distrust observations and reasonings which run counter to opinions which have been constantly entertained down to our own time, and which have been regarded as sound by so many men remarkable9 for their enlightenment and their good intentions? This argument, I allow, is calculated to make a profound impression, and it might have cast doubt upon points which we deem the most incontestable, if we had not seen, by turns, opinions the most false, and now generally acknowledged to be false, received and professed10 by everybody during a long series of ages. Not very long ago all nations, from the rudest to the most enlightened, and all men, from the street-porter to the savant, admitted the existence of four elements. No one thought of contesting that doctrine11, which, however, is false; so much so, that even the greenest assistant in a naturalist's class-room would be ashamed to say that he regarded earth, water, and fire as elements.'"
* De l'Administration Commerciale opposee à Oeconomie
Politique, p. 5.
On this M. Ferrier remarks:—
"If M. Say thinks to answer thus the very strong objection which he brings forward, he is singularly mistaken. That men, otherwise well informed, should have been mistaken for centuries on certain points of natural history is easily understood, and proves nothing. Water, air, earth, and fire, whether elements or not, are not the less useful to man.... Such errors are unimportant: they lead to no popular commotions12, no uneasiness in the public mind; they run counter to no pecuniary13 interest; and this is the reason why without any felt inconvenience they may endure for a thousand years. The physical world goes on as if they did not exist. But of errors in the moral world, can the same thing be said? Can we conceive that a system of administration, found to be absolutely false and therefore hurtful, should be followed out among many nations for centuries, with the general approval of all well-informed men? Can it be explained how such a system could coexist with the constantly increasing prosperity of nations? M. Say admits that the argument which he combats is fitted to make a profound impression. Yes, indeed; and the impression remains14; for M. Say has rather deepened than done away with it."
* Might we not say, that it is a "fearful prejudice" against
MM. Ferrier and Saint-Chamans, that "economists16 of all
schools, that is to say, everybody who has studied the
question, should have arrived at the conclusion, that, after
all, liberty is better than constraint17, and the laws of God
wiser than those of Colbert."
Let us hear what M. de Saint-Chamans says on the same subject:—
"It was only in the middle of the last century, of that eighteenth century which handed over all subjects and all principles without exception to free discussion, that these speculative18 purveyors of ideas, applied19 by them to all things without being really applicable to anything, began to write upon political economy. There existed previously20 a system of political economy, not to be found in books, but which had been put in practical operation by governments. Colbert, it is said, was the inventor of it, and it was adopted as a rule by all the nations of Europe. The singular thing is, that in spite of contempt and maledictions, in spite of all the discoveries of the modern school, it still remains in practical operation. This system, which our authors have called the mercantile system, was designed to.... impede21, by prohibitions23 or import duties, the entry of foreign products, which might ruin our own manufactures by their competition. Economic writers of all schools* have declared this system untenable, absurd, and calculated to impoverish24 any country. It has been banished25 from all their books, and forced to take refuge in the practical legislation of all nations. They cannot conceive why, in measures relating to national wealth, governments should not follow the advice and opinions of learned authors, rather than trust to their experience of the tried working of a system which has been long in operation. Above all, they cannot conceive why the French government should in economic questions obstinately26 set itself to resist the progress of enlightenment, and maintain in its practice those ancient errors, which all our economic writers have exposed. But enough of this mercantile system, which has nothing in its favour but facts, and is not defended by any speculative writer."*
p. 11.
Such language as this would lead one to suppose that in demanding for every one the free disposal of his property, economists were propounding28 some new system, some new, strange, and chimerical29 social order, a sort of phalanstère, coined in the mint of their own brain, and without precedent30 in the annals of the human race. To me it would seem that if we have here anything factitious or contingent31, it is to be found, not in liberty, but in protection; not in the free power of exchanging, but in customs duties employed to overturn artificially the natural course of remuneration.
But our business at present is not to compare, or pronounce between, the two systems; but to inquire which of the two is founded on experience.
The advocates of monopoly maintain that the facts are on their side, and that we have on our side only theory.
They flatter themselves that this long series of public acts, this old experience of Europe, which they invoke32, has presented itself as something very formidable to the mind of M. Say; and I grant that he has not refuted it with his wonted sagacity. For my own part, I am not disposed to concede to the monopolists the domain33 of facts, for they have only in their favour facts which are forced and exceptional; and we oppose to these, facts which are universal, the free and voluntary acts of mankind at large.
What do we say; and what do they say?
We say,
"You should buy from others what you cannot make for yourself but at a greater expense."
And they say,
"It is better to make things for yourself, although they cost you more than, the price at which you could buy them from others."
Now, gentlemen, throwing aside theory, argument, demonstration34, all which seems to affect you with nausea35, which of these two assertions has on its side the sanction of universal practice?
Visit your fields, your workshops, your forges, your warehouses36; look above, below, and around you; look at what takes place in your own houses; remark your own everyday acts; and say what is the principle which guides these labourers, artisans, and merchants; say what is your own personal practice.
Does the farmer make his own clothes? Does the tailor produce the corn he consumes? Does your housekeeper37 continue to have your bread made at home, after she finds she can buy it cheaper from the baker38? Do you resign the pen for the brush, to save your paying tribute to the shoeblack? Does the entire economy of society not rest upon the separation of employments, the division of labour—in a word, upon exchange? And what is exchange, but a calculation which we make with a view to discontinuing direct production in every case in which we find that possible, and in which indirect acquisition enables us to effect a saving in time and in effort?
It is not you, therefore, who are the men of practice, since you cannot point to a single human being who acts upon your principle.
But you will say, we never intended to make our principle a rule for individual relations. We perfectly39 understand that this would be to break up the bond of society, and would force men to live like snails40, each in his own shell. All that we contend for is, that our principle regulates de facto, the regulations which obtain between the different agglomerations41 of the human family.
Well, I affirm that this principle is still erroneous. The family, the commune, the canton, the department, the province, are so many agglomerations, which all, without any exception, reject practically your principle, and have never dreamt of acting42 on it. All procure43 themselves, by means of exchange, those things which it would cost them dearer to procure by means of production. And nations would do the same, did you not hinder them by force.
We, then, are the men of practice and of experience; for we oppose to the restriction44 which you have placed exceptionally on certain international exchanges, the practice and experience of all individuals, and of all agglomerations of individuals, whose acts are voluntary, and can consequently be adduced as evidence. But you begin by constraining45, by hindering, and then you lay hold of acts which are forced or prohibited, as warranting you to exclaim, "We have practice and experience on our side!"
You inveigh46 against our theory, and even against theories in general. But when you lay down a principle in opposition47 to ours, you perhaps imagine you are not proceeding48 on theory? Clear your heads of that idea. You in fact form a theory, as we do; but between your theory and ours there is this difference:
Our theory consists merely in observing universal facts, universal opinions; calculations and ways of proceeding which universally prevail; and in classifying these, and rendering49 them Co-ordinate, with a view to their being more easily understood.
Our theory is so little opposed to practice that it is nothing else but practice explained. We observe men acting as they are moved by the instinct of self-preservation and a desire for progress, and what they thus do freely and voluntarily we denominate political or social economy. We can never help repeating, that each individual man is practically an excellent economist15, producing or exchanging according as he finds it more to his interest to produce or to exchange. Each, by experience, educates himself in this science; or rather the science itself is only this same experience accurately50 observed and methodically explained.
But on your side, you construct a theory in the worst sense of the word. You imagine, you invent, a course of proceeding which is not sanctioned by the practice of any living man under the canopy51 of heaven; and then you invoke the aid of constraint and prohibition22. It is quite necessary that you should have recourse to force, for you desire that men should be made to produce those things which they find it more advantageous52 to buy; you desire that they should renounce53 this advantage, and act upon a doctrine which implies a contradiction in terms.
The doctrine which you acknowledge would be absurd in the relations of individuals; I defy you to extend it, even in speculation54, to transaction between families, communities, or provinces. By your own admission, it is only applicable to international relations.
This is the reason why you are forced to keep repeating:
"There are no absolute principles, no inflexible55 rules. What is good for an individual, a family, a province, is bad for a nation. What is good in detail—namely, to purchase rather than produce, when purchasing is more advantageous than producing—that same is bad in the gross. The political economy of individuals is not that of nations;" and other nonsense ejusdèm farino.
And to what does all this tend? Look at it a little closer. The intention is to prove that we, the consumers, are your property! that we are yours body and soul! that you have an exclusive right over our stomachs and our limbs! that it belongs to you to feed and clothe us on your own terms, whatever be your ignorance, incapacity, or rapacity56!
No, you are not men of practice; you are men of abstraction—and of extortion.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
administrators
|
|
| n.管理者( administrator的名词复数 )；有管理（或行政）才能的人；（由遗嘱检验法庭指定的）遗产管理人；奉派暂管主教教区的牧师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
imposing
|
|
| adj.使人难忘的，壮丽的，堂皇的，雄伟的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
dissented
|
|
| 不同意，持异议( dissent的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
unaware
|
|
| a.不知道的，未意识到的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
standing
|
|
| n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
professed
|
|
| 公开声称的，伪称的，已立誓信教的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
commotions
|
|
| n.混乱，喧闹，骚动( commotion的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
13
pecuniary
|
|
| adj.金钱的；金钱上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
economist
|
|
| n.经济学家，经济专家，节俭的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
economists
|
|
| n.经济学家，经济专家( economist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
constraint
|
|
| n.(on)约束，限制；限制(或约束)性的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
speculative
|
|
| adj.思索性的，暝想性的，推理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
impede
|
|
| v.妨碍，阻碍，阻止 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
prohibition
|
|
| n.禁止；禁令，禁律 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
prohibitions
|
|
| 禁令，禁律( prohibition的名词复数 )； 禁酒； 禁例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
impoverish
|
|
| vt.使穷困，使贫困 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
banished
|
|
| v.放逐，驱逐( banish的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
obstinately
|
|
| ad.固执地，顽固地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
par
|
|
| n.标准，票面价值，平均数量；adj.票面的，平常的，标准的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
propounding
|
|
| v.提出（问题、计划等）供考虑[讨论]，提议( propound的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
chimerical
|
|
| adj.荒诞不经的，梦幻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
precedent
|
|
| n.先例，前例；惯例；adj.在前的，在先的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
contingent
|
|
| adj.视条件而定的；n.一组，代表团，分遣队 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
invoke
|
|
| v.求助于(神、法律)；恳求，乞求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
domain
|
|
| n.(活动等)领域，范围；领地，势力范围 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
demonstration
|
|
| n.表明，示范，论证，示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
nausea
|
|
| n.作呕，恶心；极端的憎恶(或厌恶) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
warehouses
|
|
| 仓库，货栈( warehouse的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
housekeeper
|
|
| n.管理家务的主妇，女管家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
baker
|
|
| n.面包师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
snails
|
|
| n.蜗牛；迟钝的人；蜗牛( snail的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
agglomerations
|
|
| n.成团，结块（agglomeration的复数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
restriction
|
|
| n.限制，约束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
constraining
|
|
| 强迫( constrain的现在分词 )； 强使； 限制； 约束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
inveigh
|
|
| v.痛骂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
rendering
|
|
| n.表现，描写 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
accurately
|
|
| adv.准确地，精确地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
canopy
|
|
| n.天篷，遮篷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
advantageous
|
|
| adj.有利的；有帮助的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
renounce
|
|
| v.放弃；拒绝承认，宣布与…断绝关系 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
speculation
|
|
| n.思索，沉思；猜测；投机 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
inflexible
|
|
| adj.不可改变的，不受影响的，不屈服的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
rapacity
|
|
| n.贪婪，贪心，劫掠的欲望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |