We see men who clap their hands when a great invention is introduced, and who nevertheless adhere to the protectionist regime. Such men are grossly inconsistent!
With what do they reproach free trade? With encouraging the production by foreigners, more skilled or more favourably3 situated4 than we are, of commodities which, but for free trade, would be produced at home. In a word, they accuse free trade of being injurious to national labour?
For the same reason, should they not reproach machinery5 with accomplishing by natural agents what otherwise would have been done by manual labour, and so of being injurious to human labour?
The foreign workman, better and more favourably situated than the home workman for the production of certain commodities, is, with reference to the latter, a veritable economic machine, crushing him by competition. In like manner, machinery, which executes a piece of work at a lower price than a certain number of men could do by manual labour, is, in relation to these manual labourers, a veritable foreign competitor, who paralyzes them by his rivalry6.
If, then, it is politic7 to protect national labour against the competition of foreign labour, it is not less so to protect human labour against the rivalry of mechanical labour.
Thus, every adherent8 of the regime of protection, if he is logical, should not content himself with prohibiting foreign products; he should proscribe10 also the products of the shuttle and the plough.
And this is the reason why I like better the logic9 of those men who, declaiming against the invasion of foreign merchandise, declaim likewise against the excess of production which is due to the inventive power of the human mind.
Such a man is M. de Saint-Chamans. "One of the strongest arguments against free trade," he says, "is the too extensive employment of machinery, for many workmen are deprived of employment, either by foreign competition, which lowers the price of our manufactured goods, or by instruments which take the place of men in our workshops."*
* Du Système d'imp?ts, p. 438.
M. de Saint-Chamans has seen clearly the analogy, or, we should rather say, the identity, which obtains between imports and machinery. For this reason, he proscribes11 both; and it is really agreeable to have to do with such intrepid12 reasoners, who, even when wrong, carry out their argument to its logical conclusion.
But here is the mess in which they land themselves.
If it be true, a priori, that the domain13 of invention and that of labour cannot be simultaneously14 extended but at each other's expense, it must be in those countries where machinery most abounds—in Lancashire, for example—that we should expect to find the fewest workmen. And if, on the other hand, we establish the fact that mechanical power and manual labour coexist, and to a greater extent, among rich nations than among savages15, the conclusion is inevitable16, that these two powers do not exclude each other.
I cannot convince myself how any thinking being can enjoy a moment's repose17 in presence of the following dilemma18: Either the inventions of man are not injurious to manual labour, as general facts attest19, since there are more of both in England and France than among the Hurons and Cherokees, and that being so, I am on a wrong road, though I know neither where nor when I missed my way; at all events, I see I am wrong, and I should commit the crime of lese-humanity were I to introduce my error into the legislation of my country.
Or else, the discoveries of the human mind limit the amount of manual labour, as special facts appear to indicate; for I see every day some machine or other superseding20 twenty or a hundred workmen; and then I am forced to acknowledge a flagrant, eternal, and incurable21 antithesis22 between the intellectual and physical powers of man—between his progress and his present wellbeing; and in these circumstances I am forced to say that the Creator of man might have endowed him with reason, or with physical strength, with moral force, or with brute23 force; but that He mocked him by conferring on him, at the same time, faculties24 which are destructive of each other.
The difficulty is pressing and puzzling; but you contrive25 to find your way out of it by adopting the strange apophthegm:
In political economy, there are no absolute principles.
In plain language, this means:
"I know not whether it be true or false; I am ignorant of what constitutes general good or evil. I give myself no trouble about that. The immediate26 effect of each measure upon my own personal interest is the only law which I can consent to recognise."
There are no principles! You might as well say there are no facts; for principles are merely formulas which classify such facts as are well established.
Machinery, and the importation of foreign commodities, certainly produce effects. These effects may be good or bad; on that there may be difference of opinion. But whatever view we take of them, it is reduced to a formula, by one of these two principles: Machinery is a good; or, machinery is an evil: Importations of foreign produce are beneficial; or, such importations are hurtful. But to assert that there are no principles, certainly exhibits the lowest degree of abasement27 to which the human mind can descend28; and I confess that I blush for my country when I hear such a monstrous29 heresy30 proclaimed in the French Chambers31, and with their assent32; that is to say, in the face and with the assent of the elite33 of our fellow-citizens; and this in order to justify34 their imposing35 laws upon us in total ignorance of the real state of the case.
But then I am told to destroy the sophism36, by proving that machinery is not hurtful to human labour, nor the importation of foreign products to national labour.
A work like the present cannot well include very full or complete demonstrations37. My design is rather to state difficulties than to resolve them; to excite reflection rather than to satisfy doubts. No conviction makes so lasting38 an impression on the mind as that which it works out for itself. But I shall endeavour nevertheless to put the reader on the right road.
What misleads the adversaries39 of machinery and foreign importations is, that they judge of them by their immediate and transitory effects, instead of following them out to their general and definitive40 consequences.
The immediate effect of the invention and employment of an ingenious machine is to render superfluous41, for the attainment42 of a given result, a certain amount of manual labour. But its action does not stop there. For the very reason that the desired result is obtained with fewer efforts, the product is handed over to the public at a lower price; and the aggregate43 of savings44 thus realized by all purchasers, enables them to procure45 other satisfactions; that is to say, to encourage manual labour in general to exactly the extent of the manual labour which has been saved in the special branch of industry which has been recently improved. So that the level of labour has not fallen, while that of enjoyments46 has risen.
Let us render this evident by an example.
Suppose there are used annually47 in this country ten millions of hats at 15 shillings; this makes the sum which goes to the support of this branch of industry ￡7,500,000 sterling48. A machine is invented which allows these hats to be manufactured and sold at 10 shillings. The sum now wanted for the support of this industry is reduced to ￡5,000,000, provided the demand is not augmented49 by the change. But the remaining sum of ￡2,500,000 is not by this change withdrawn50 from the support of human labour. That sum, economized51 by the purchasers of hats, will enable them to satisfy other wants, and, consequently, to that extent will go to remunerate the aggregate industry of the country. With the five shillings saved, John will purchase a pair of shoes, James a book, Jerome a piece of furniture, etc. Human labour, taken in the aggregate, will continue, then, to be supported and encouraged to the extent of ￡7,500,000; but this sum will yield the same number of hats, plus all the satisfactions and enjoyments corresponding to ￡2,500,000 that the employment of the machine has enabled the consumers of hats to save. These additional enjoyments constitute the clear profit which the country will have derived52 from the invention. This is a free gift, a tribute which human genius will have derived from nature. We do not at all dispute, that in the course of the transformation53 a certain amount of labour will have been displaced; but we cannot allow that it has been destroyed or diminished.
The same thing holds of the importation of foreign commodities. Let us revert54 to our former hypothesis.
The country manufactures ten millions of hats, of which the cost price was 15 shillings. The foreigner sends similar hats to our market, and furnishes them at 10 shillings each. I maintain that the national labour will not be thereby55 diminished.
For it must produce to the extent of ￡5,000,000, to enable it to pay for 10 millions of hats at 10 shillings.
And then there remains56 to each purchaser five shillings saved on each hat, or in all, ￡2,500,000, which will be spent on other enjoyments—that is to say, which will go to support labour in other departments of industry.
Then the aggregate labour of the country will remain what it was, and the additional enjoyments represented by ￡2,500,000 saved upon hats, will form the clear profit accruing57 from imports under the system of free trade.
It is of no use to try to frighten us by a picture of the sufferings which, on this hypothesis, the displacement58 of labour will entail59.
For, if the prohibition had never been imposed, the labour would have found its natural place under the ordinary law of exchange, and no displacement would have taken place.
If, on the other hand, prohibition has led to an artificial and unproductive employment of labour, it is prohibition, and not liberty, which is to blame for a displacement which is inevitable in the transition from what is detrimental60 to what is beneficial.
At all events, let no one pretend that because an abuse cannot be done away with, without inconvenience to those who profit by it, what has been suffered to exist for a time should be allowed to exist for ever.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
prohibition
|
|
| n.禁止；禁令，禁律 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
favourably
|
|
| adv. 善意地，赞成地 =favorably | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
situated
|
|
| adj.坐落在...的，处于某种境地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
machinery
|
|
| n.(总称)机械，机器；机构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
rivalry
|
|
| n.竞争，竞赛，对抗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
politic
|
|
| adj.有智虑的；精明的；v.从政 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
adherent
|
|
| n.信徒，追随者，拥护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
logic
|
|
| n.逻辑(学)；逻辑性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
proscribe
|
|
| v.禁止；排斥；放逐，充军；剥夺公权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
proscribes
|
|
| v.正式宣布（某事物）有危险或被禁止( proscribe的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
12
intrepid
|
|
| adj.无畏的，刚毅的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
domain
|
|
| n.(活动等)领域，范围；领地，势力范围 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
simultaneously
|
|
| adv.同时发生地，同时进行地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
savages
|
|
| 未开化的人，野蛮人( savage的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
repose
|
|
| v.(使)休息；n.安息 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
dilemma
|
|
| n.困境，进退两难的局面 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
attest
|
|
| vt.证明，证实；表明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
superseding
|
|
| 取代，接替( supersede的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
incurable
|
|
| adj.不能医治的，不能矫正的，无救的；n.不治的病人，无救的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
antithesis
|
|
| n.对立；相对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
brute
|
|
| n.野兽，兽性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
faculties
|
|
| n.能力( faculty的名词复数 )；全体教职员；技巧；院 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
contrive
|
|
| vt.谋划，策划；设法做到；设计，想出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
abasement
|
|
| n.滥用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
descend
|
|
| vt./vi.传下来，下来，下降 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
monstrous
|
|
| adj.巨大的；恐怖的；可耻的，丢脸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
heresy
|
|
| n.异端邪说；异教 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
chambers
|
|
| n.房间( chamber的名词复数 )；（议会的）议院；卧室；会议厅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
assent
|
|
| v.批准，认可；n.批准，认可 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
elite
|
|
| n.精英阶层；实力集团；adj.杰出的，卓越的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
imposing
|
|
| adj.使人难忘的，壮丽的，堂皇的，雄伟的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
sophism
|
|
| n.诡辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
demonstrations
|
|
| 证明( demonstration的名词复数 )； 表明； 表达； 游行示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
lasting
|
|
| adj.永久的，永恒的；vbl.持续，维持 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
adversaries
|
|
| n.对手，敌手( adversary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
definitive
|
|
| adj.确切的，权威性的；最后的，决定性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
superfluous
|
|
| adj.过多的，过剩的，多余的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
attainment
|
|
| n.达到，到达；［常pl.］成就，造诣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
aggregate
|
|
| adj.总计的，集合的；n.总数；v.合计；集合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
savings
|
|
| n.存款，储蓄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
enjoyments
|
|
| 愉快( enjoyment的名词复数 )； 令人愉快的事物； 享有； 享受 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
annually
|
|
| adv.一年一次，每年 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
sterling
|
|
| adj.英币的(纯粹的，货真价实的)；n.英国货币(英镑) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
Augmented
|
|
| adj.增音的 动词augment的过去式和过去分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
withdrawn
|
|
| vt.收回；使退出；vi.撤退，退出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
economized
|
|
| v.节省，减少开支( economize的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
derived
|
|
| vi.起源；由来；衍生；导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
transformation
|
|
| n.变化；改造；转变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
revert
|
|
| v.恢复，复归，回到 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
thereby
|
|
| adv.因此，从而 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
accruing
|
|
| v.增加( accrue的现在分词 )；（通过自然增长）产生；获得；（使钱款、债务）积累 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
displacement
|
|
| n.移置，取代，位移，排水量 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
entail
|
|
| vt.使承担，使成为必要，需要 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
detrimental
|
|
| adj.损害的，造成伤害的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |