We see men who clap their hands when a great invention is made known to the world, who nevertheless adhere to the protective system. Such men are highly inconsistent.
With what do they upbraid3 freedom of commerce? With getting foreigners more skilful4 or better situated5 than ourselves to produce articles, which, but for them, we should produce ourselves. In one word, they accuse us of damaging national labor6.
Might they not as well reproach machines for accomplishing, by natural agents, work which, without them, we could perform with our own arms, and, in consequence, damaging human labor?
The foreign workman who is more favorably situated than the American laborer7, is, in respect to the latter, a veritable economic machine, which injures him by competition. In the same manner, a machine which executes a piece of work at a less price than can be done by a certain number of arms, is, relatively8 to those arms, a true competing foreigner, who paralyzes them by his rivalry9.
If, then, it is needful to protect national labor against [130] the competition of foreign labor, it is not less so, to protect human labor against the rivalry of mechanical labor.
So, he who adheres to the protective policy, if he has but a small amount of logic10 in his brain, must not stop when he has prohibited foreign products; he must farther proscribe11 the shuttle and the plough.
And that is the reason why we prefer the logic of those men who, declaiming against the invasion of exotic merchandise, have, at least, the courage to declaim as well against the excess of production due to the inventive power of the human mind.
Hear such a Conservative:—"One of the strongest arguments against liberty of commerce, and the too great employment of machines, is, that very many workmen are deprived of work, either by foreign competition, which is destructive to their manufactures, or by machines, which take the place of men in the workshops."
This gentleman perfectly12 sees the analogy, or rather, let us say, the identity, existing between importations and machines; that is the reason he proscribes13 both: and truly there is some pleasure in having to do with reasonings, which, even in error, pursue an argument to the end.
Let us look at the difficulty in the way of its soundness.
If it be true, à priori, that the domain14 of invention and that of labor cannot be extended, except at the expense of one or the other, it is in the place where there are most machines, Lancaster or Lowell, for example, that we shall meet with the fewest workmen. [131] And if, on the contrary, we prove a fact, that mechanical and hand work co-exist in a greater degree among wealthy nations than among savages15, we must necessarily conclude that these two powers do not exclude each other.
Either—"The inventions of man do not injure labor, as general facts attest18, since there are more of both among the English and Americans than among the Hottentots and Cherokees. In that case I have made a false reckoning, though I know neither where nor when I got astray. I should commit the crime of treason to humanity if I should introduce my error into the legislation of my country."
Or else—"The discoveries of the mind limit the work of the arms, as some particular facts seem to indicate; for I see daily a machine do the labor of from twenty to a hundred workmen, and thus I am forced to prove a flagrant, eternal, incurable19 antithesis20 between the intellectual and physical ability of man; between his progress and his comfort; and I cannot forbear saying that the Creator of man ought to have given him either reason or arms, moral force, or brutal21 force, but that he has played with him in conferring upon him opposing faculties22 which destroy one another."
The difficulty is pressing. Do you know how they get rid of it? By this singular apothegm:
"In political economy there are no absolute principles."
In intelligible23 and vulgar language, that means: "I [132] do not know where is the true nor the false; I am ignorant of what constitutes general good or evil; I give myself no trouble about it. The only law which I consent to recognize, is the immediate24 effect of each measure upon my personal comfort."
No absolute principles! You might as well say, there are no absolute facts; for principles are only the summing up of well proven facts.
Machines, importations, have certainly consequences. These consequences are good or bad. On this point there may be difference of opinion. But whichever of these we adopt, we express it in one of these two principles: "machines are a benefit," or "machines are an evil." "Importations are favorable," or "importations are injurious." But to say "there are no principles," is the lowest degree of abasement25 to which the human mind can descend26; and we confess we blush for our country when we hear so monstrous27 a heresy28 uttered in the presence of the American people, with their consent; that is to say, in the presence and with the consent of the greater part of our fellow-citizens, in order to justify29 Congress for imposing30 laws on us, in perfect ignorance of the reasons for them or against them.
But then we shall be told, "destroy the sophism31; prove that machines do not injure human labor, nor importations national industry."
In an essay of this nature such demonstrations32 cannot be complete. Our aim is more to propose difficulties than to solve them; to excite reflection, than to satisfy it. No conviction of the mind is well acquired, excepting that which it gains by its own labor. We will try, nevertheless, to place it before you.
[133]
The opponents of importations and machines are mistaken, because they judge by immediate and transitory consequences, instead of looking at general and final ones.
The immediate effect of an ingenious machine is to economize33, towards a given result, a certain amount of handwork. But its action does not stop there: inasmuch as this result is obtained with less effort, it is given to the public for a lower price; and the amount of the savings34 thus realized by all the purchasers, enables them to procure35 other gratifications—that is to say, to encourage handwork in general, equal in amount to that subtracted from the special handwork lately improved upon—so that the level of work has not fallen, though that of gratification has risen. Let us make this connection of consequences evident by an example.
Suppose that in the United States ten millions of hats are sold at five dollars each: this affords to the hatters' trade an income of fifty millions. A machine is invented which allows hats to be afforded at three dollars each. The receipts are reduced to thirty millions, admitting that the consumption does not increase. But, for all that, the other twenty millions are not subtracted from human labor. Economized36 by the purchasers of hats, they will serve them in satisfying other needs, and by consequence will, to that amount, remunerate collective industry. With these two dollars saved, John will purchase a pair of shoes, James a book, William a piece of furniture, etc. Human labor, in the general, will thus continue to be encouraged to the amount of fifty millions; but this sum, beside giving [134] the same number of hats as before, will add the gratifications obtained by the twenty millions which the machine has spared. These gratifications are the net products which America has gained by the invention. It is a gratuitous37 gift, a tax, which the genius of man has imposed on Nature. We do not deny that, in the course of the change, a certain amount of labor may have been displaced; but we cannot agree that it has been destroyed, or even diminished. The same holds true of importations.
We will resume the hypothesis. America makes ten millions of hats, of which the price was five dollars each. The foreigner invaded our market in furnishing us with hats at three dollars. We say that national labor will be not at all diminished. For it will have to produce to the amount of thirty millions, in order to pay for ten millions of hats at three dollars. And then there will remain to each purchaser two dollars saved on each hat, or a total of twenty millions, which will compensate38 for other enjoyments39; that is to say, for other work. So the total of labor remains40 what it was; and the supplementary41 enjoyments, represented by twenty millions economized on the hats, will form the net profit of the importations, or of free trade.
No one need attempt to horrify42 us by a picture of the sufferings, which, in this hypothesis, will accompany the displacement43 of labor. For if prohibition44 had never existed, labor would have classed itself in accordance with the law of exchange, and no displacement would have taken place. If, on the contrary, prohibition has brought in an artificial and unproductive kind of work, it is prohibition, and not free trade, which is responsible [135] for the inevitable45 displacement, in the transition from wrong to right.
Unless, indeed, it should be contended that, because an abuse cannot be destroyed without hurting those who profit by it, its existence for a single moment is reason enough why it should endure forever.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
upbraid
|
|
| v.斥责，责骂，责备 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
skilful
|
|
| (=skillful)adj.灵巧的，熟练的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
situated
|
|
| adj.坐落在...的，处于某种境地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
laborer
|
|
| n.劳动者，劳工 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
relatively
|
|
| adv.比较...地，相对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
rivalry
|
|
| n.竞争，竞赛，对抗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
logic
|
|
| n.逻辑(学)；逻辑性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
proscribe
|
|
| v.禁止；排斥；放逐，充军；剥夺公权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
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： |
|
|
|
|
|
14
domain
|
|
| n.(活动等)领域，范围；领地，势力范围 | |
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
repose
|
|
| v.(使)休息；n.安息 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
dilemma
|
|
| n.困境，进退两难的局面 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
attest
|
|
| vt.证明，证实；表明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
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： |
|
|
|
|
20
antithesis
|
|
| n.对立；相对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
brutal
|
|
| adj.残忍的，野蛮的，不讲理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
faculties
|
|
| n.能力( faculty的名词复数 )；全体教职员；技巧；院 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
intelligible
|
|
| adj.可理解的，明白易懂的，清楚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
abasement
|
|
| n.滥用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
descend
|
|
| vt./vi.传下来，下来，下降 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
monstrous
|
|
| adj.巨大的；恐怖的；可耻的，丢脸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
heresy
|
|
| n.异端邪说；异教 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
imposing
|
|
| adj.使人难忘的，壮丽的，堂皇的，雄伟的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
sophism
|
|
| n.诡辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
demonstrations
|
|
| 证明( demonstration的名词复数 )； 表明； 表达； 游行示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
economize
|
|
| v.节约，节省 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
savings
|
|
| n.存款，储蓄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
economized
|
|
| v.节省，减少开支( economize的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
gratuitous
|
|
| adj.无偿的，免费的；无缘无故的，不必要的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
compensate
|
|
| vt.补偿，赔偿；酬报 vi.弥补；补偿；抵消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
enjoyments
|
|
| 愉快( enjoyment的名词复数 )； 令人愉快的事物； 享有； 享受 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
supplementary
|
|
| adj.补充的，附加的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
horrify
|
|
| vt.使恐怖，使恐惧，使惊骇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
displacement
|
|
| n.移置，取代，位移，排水量 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
prohibition
|
|
| n.禁止；禁令，禁律 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |