list2-第14章
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
best and pays most attention to his occupation； is far better able
to judge than the statesman or legislator how his capital can most
profitably be invested。 He who would venture to give advice to the
people how to invest their capital would not merely take upon
himself a useless task； but would also assume to himself an
authority which belongs solely to the producer； and which can be
entrusted to those persons least of all who consider themselves
equal to so difficult a task。 Adam Smith concludes from this：
'Restrictions on trade imposed on the behalf of the internal
industry of a country； are mere folly； every nation； like every
individual； ought to buy articles where they can be procured the
cheapest； in order to attain to the highest degree of national
prosperity； we have simply to follow the maxim of letting things
alone （laisser faire et laisser aller）。' Smith and Say compare a
nation which seeks to promote its industry by protective duties； to
a tailor who wants to make his own boots； and to a bootmaker who
would impose a toll on those who enter his door； in order to
promote his prosperity。 As in all errors of the popular school； so
also in this one does Thomas Cooper go to extremes in his book（2*）
which is directed against the American system of protection。
'Political economy；' he alleges； 'is almost synonymous with the
private economy of all individuals； politics are no essential
ingredient of political economy； it is folly to suppose that the
community is something quite different from the individuals of whom
it is composed。 Every individual knows best how to invest his
labour and his capital。 The wealth of the community is nothing else
than the aggregate of the wealth of all its individual members； and
if every individual can provide best for himself； that nation must
be the richest in which every individual is most left to himself。'
The adherents of the American system of protection had opposed
themselves to this argument； which had formerly been adduced by
importing merchants in favour of free trade； the American
navigation laws had greatly increased the carrying trade； the
foreign commerce； and fisheries of the United States； and for the
mere protection of their mercantile marine millions had been
annually expended on their fleet； according to his theory those
laws and this expense also would be as reprehensible as protective
duties。 ' In any case；' exclaims Mr Cooper； 'no commerce by sea is
worth a naval war； the merchants may be left to protect
themselves。'
Thus the popular school； which had begun by ignoring the
principles of nationality and national interests； finally comes to
the point of altogether denying their existence； and of leaving
individuals to defend them as they may solely by their own
individual powers。
How？ Is the wisdom of private economy； also wisdom in national
economy？ Is it in the nature of individuals to take into
consideration the wants of future centuries； as those concern the
nature of the nation and the State？ Let us consider only the first
beginning of an American town； every individual left to himself
would care merely for his own wants； or at the most for those of
his nearest successors； whereas all individuals united in one
community provide for the convenience and the wants of the most
distant generations； they subject the present generation for this
object to privations and sacrifices which no reasonable person
could expect from individuals。 Can the individual further take into
consideration in promoting his private economy； the defence of the
country； public security and the thousand other objects which can
only be attained by the aid of the whole community？ Does not the
State require individuals to limit their private liberty according
to what these objects require？ Does it not even require that they
should sacrifice for these some part of their earnings； of their
mental and bodily labour； nay； even their own life？ We must first
root out； as Cooper does； the very ideas of 'State' and 'nation'
before this opinion can be entertained。
No； that may be wisdom in national economy which would be folly
in private economy； and vice vers猓弧nd owing to the very simple
reason； that a tailor is no nation and a nation no tailor； that one
family is something very different from a community of millions of
families； that one house is something very different from a large
national territory。 Nor does the individual merely by understanding
his own interests best； and by striving to further them； if left to
his own devices； always further the interests of the community。 We
ask those who occupy the benches of justice； whether they do not
frequently have to send individuals to the tread…mill on account of
their excess of inventive power； and of their all too great
industry。 Robbers； thieves； smugglers； and cheats know their own
local and personal circumstances and conditions extremely well； and
pay the most active attention to their business； but it by no means
follows therefrom； that society is in the best condition where such
individuals are least restrained in the exercise of their private
industry。
In a thousand cases the power of the State is compelled to
impose restrictions on private industry。 It prevents the shipowner
from taking on board slaves on the west coast of Africa； and taking
them over to America。 It imposes regulations as to the building of
steamers and the rules of navigation at sea； in order that
passengers and sailors may not be sacrificed to the avarice and
caprice of the captains。 In England certain rules have recently
been enacted with regard to shipbuilding； because an infernal union
between assurance companies and shipowners has been brought to
light； whereby yearly thousands of human lives and millions in
value were sacrificed to the avarice of a few persons。 In North
America millers are bound under a penalty to pack into each cask
not less than 198 lbs。 of good flour； and for all market goods
market inspectors are appointed； although in no other country is
individual liberty more highly prized。 Everywhere does the State
consider it to be its duty to guard the public against danger and
loss； as in the sale of necessaries of life； so also in the sale of
medicines； &c。
But the cases which we have mentioned （the school will reply）
concern unlawful damages to property and to the person； not the
honourable exchange of useful objects； not the harmless and useful
industry of private individuals； to impose restrictions on these
latter the State has no right whatever。 Of course not； so long as
they remain harmless and useful； that which； however； is harmless
and useful in itself； in general commerce with the world； can
become dangerous and injurious in national internal commerce； and
vice vers狻！n time of peace； and considered from a cosmopolitan
point of view； privateering is an injurious profession； in time of
war； Governments favour it。 The deliberate killing of a human being
is a crime in time of peace； in war it becomes a duty。 Trading in
gunpowder； lead； and arms in time of peace is allowed； but whoever
provides the enemy with them in time of war； is punished as a
traitor。
For similar reasons the State is not merely justified in
imposing； but bound to impose； certain regulations and restrictions
on commerce （which is in itself harmless） for the best interests of
the nation。 By prohibitions and protective duties it does not give
directi
