list2-第15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！





the　nation。　By　prohibitions　and　protective　duties　it　does　not　give



directions　to　individuals　how　to　employ　their　productive　powers　and



capital　（as　the　popular　school　sophistically　alleges）；　it　does　not



tell　the　one；　'You　must　invest　your　money　in　the　building　of　a



ship；　or　in　the　erection　of　a　manufactory；'　or　the　other；　'You　must



be　a　naval　captain　or　a　civil　engineer；'　it　leaves　it　to　the



judgment　of　every　individual　how　and　where　to　invest　his　capital；



or　to　what　vocation　he　will　devote　himself。　It　merely　says；　'It　is



to　the　advantage　of　our　nation　that　we　manufacture　these　or　the



other　goods　ourselves；　but　as　by　free　competition　with　foreign



countries　we　can　never　obtain　possession　of　this　advantage；　we　have



imposed　restrictions　on　that　competition；　so　far　as　in　our　opinion



is　necessary；　to　give　those　among　us　who　invest　their　capital　in



these　new　branches　of　industry；　and　those　who　devote　their　bodily



and　mental　powers　to　them；　the　requisite　guarantees　that　they　shall



not　lose　their　capital　and　shall　not　miss　their　vocation　in　life；



and　further　to　stimulate　foreigners　to　come　over　to　our　side　with



their　productive　powers。　In　this　manner；　it　does　not　in　the　least



degree　restrain　private　industry；　on　the　contrary；　it　secures　to



the　personal；　natural；　and　moneyed　powers　of　the　nation　a　greater



and　wider　field　of　activity。　It　does　not　thereby　do　something　which



its　individual　citizens　could　understand　better　and　do　better　than



it；　on　the　contrary　it　does　something　which　the　individuals；　even



if　they　understood　it；　would　not　be　able　to　do　for　themselves。



　　　　The　allegation　of　the　school；　that　the　system　of　protection



occasions　unjust　and　anti…economical　encroachments　by　the　power　of



the　State　against　the　employment　of　the　capital　and　industry　of



private　individuals；　appears　in　the　least　favourable　light　if　we



consider　that　it　is　the　foreign　commercial　regulations　which　allow



such　encroachments　on　our　private　industry　to　take　place；　and　that



only　by　the　aid　of　the　system　of　protection　are　we　enabled　to



counteract　those　injurious　operations　of　the　foreign　commercial



policy。　If　the　English　shut　out　our　corn　from　their　markets；　what



else　are　they　doing　than　compelling　our　agriculturists　to　grow　so



much　less　corn　than　they　would　have　sent　out　to　England　under



systems　of　free　importation？　If　they　put　such　heavy　duties　on　our



wool；　our　wines；　or　our　timber；　that　our　export　trade　to　England



wholly　or　in　great　measure　ceases；　what　else　is　thereby　effected



than　that　the　power　of　the　English　nation　restricts　proportionately



our　branches　of　production？　In　these　cases　a　direction　is　evidently



given　by　foreign　legislation　to　our　capital　and　our　personal



productive　powers；　which　but　for　the　regulations　made　by　it　they



would　scarcely　have　followed。　It　follows　from　this；　that　were　we　to



disown　giving；　by　means　of　our　own　legislation；　a　direction　to　our



own　national　industry　in　accordance　with　our　own　national



interests；　we　could　not　prevent　foreign　nations　from　regulating　our



national　industry　after　a　fashion　which　corresponds　with　their　own



real　or　presumed　advantage；　and　which　in　any　case　operates



disadvantageously　to　the　development　of　our　own　productive　powers。



But　can　it　possibly　be　wiser　on　our　part；　and　more　to　the　advantage



of　those　who　nationally　belong　to　us；　for　us　to　allow　our　private



industry　to　be　regulated　by　a　foreign　national　Legislature；　in



accordance　with　foreign　national　interests；　rather　than　regulate　it



by　means　of　our　own　Legislature　and　in　accordance　with　our　own



interests？　Does　the　German　or　American　agriculturist　feel　himself



less　restricted　if　he　has　to　study　every　year　the　English　Acts　of



Parliament；　in　order　to　ascertain　whether　that　body　deems　it



advantageous　to　encourage　or　to　impose　restrictions　on　his



production　of　corn　or　wool；　than　if　his　own　Legislature　imposes



certain　restrictions　on　him　in　respect　of　foreign　manufactured



goods；　but　at　the　same　time　insures　him　a　market　for　all　his



products；　of　which　he　can　never　again　be　deprived　by　foreign



legislation？



　　　　If　the　school　maintains　that　protective　duties　secure　to　the



home　manufacturers　a　monopoly　to　the　disadvantage　of　the　home



consumers；　in　so　doing　it　makes　use　of　a　weak　argument。　For　as



every　individual　in　the　nation　is　free　to　share　in　the　profits　of



the　home　market　which　is　thus　secured　to　native　industry；　this　is



in　no　respect　a　private　monopoly；　but　a　privilege；　secured　to　all



those　who　belong　to　our　nation；　as　against　those　who　nationally



belong　to　foreign　nations；　and　which　is　the　more　righteous　and　just



inasmuch　as　those　who　nationally　belong　to　foreign　nations　possess



themselves　the　very　same　monopoly；　and　those　who　belong　to　us　are



merely　thereby　put　on　the　same　footing　with　them。　It　is　neither　a



privilege　to　the　exclusive　advantage　of　the　producers；　nor　to　the



exclusive　disadvantage　of　the　consumers；　for　if　the　producers　at



first　obtain　higher　prices；　they　run　great　risks；　and　have　to



contend　against　those　considerable　losses　and　sacrifices　which　are



always　connected　with　all　beginnings　in　manufacturing　industry。　But



the　consumers　have　ample　security　that　these　extraordinary　profits



shall　not　reach　unreasonable　limits；　or　become　perpetual；　by　means



of　the　competition　at　home　which　follows　later　on；　and　which；　as　a



rule；　always　lowers　prices　further　than　the　level　at　which　they　had



steadily　ranged　under　the　free　competition　of　the　foreigner。　If　the



agriculturists；　who　are　the　most　important　consumers　to　the



manufacturers；　must　also　pay　higher　prices；　this　disadvantage　will



be　amply　repaid　to　them　by　increased　demands　for　agricultural



products；　and　by　increased　prices　obtained　for　the　latter。



　　　　It　is　a　further　sophism；　arrived　at　by　confounding　the　theory



of　mere　values　with　that　of　the　powers　of　production；　when　the



popular　school　infers　from　the　doctrine；　'that　the　wealth　of　the



nation　is　merely　the　aggregate　of　the　wealth　of　all　individuals　in



it；　and　that　the　private　interest　of　every　individual　is　better



able　than　all　State　regulations　to　incite　to　production　and



accumulation　of　wealth；'　the　conclusion　that　the　national　industry



would　prosper　best　if　only　every　individual　were　left　undisturbed



in　the　occupation　of　accumulating　wealth。　That　doctrine　can　be



conceded　without　the　conclusion　resulting　from　it　at　which　the



school　desires　thus　to　arrive；　for　the　point　in　question　is　not　（as



we　have　shown　in　a　previous　chapter）　that　of　immediately　increasing



by　commercial　restrictions　the　amount　of　the　values　of　exchange　in



the　nation；　but　of　increasing　the　amount　of　its　productive　powers。



But　that　the　aggregate　of　the　productive　powers　of　the　nation　is



not　synonymous　with　the　aggregate　of　the　productive　powers　of　all



individuals；　each　considered　separately　　that　the　total　amount　of



these　powers　depends　chiefly　on　social　and　Political　conditions；



but　especially　on　the　degree　in　which　the　nation　has　rendered



effectual　the　division　of　labour　and　the　confederation　of　the



powers　of　production　within　itself　　we　believe　we　have



sufficiently　demonstrated　in　the　preceding　chapters。



　　　　This　system　everywhere　takes　into　its　consideration　only



individuals　who　are　in　free　unrestrained　intercourse　among



themselves；　and　who　are　contented　if　we　leave　everyone　to　pursue



his　own　private　interests　according　to　his　own　private　natural



inclination。　This　is　evidently　not　a　system　of　national　economy；



but　a　system　of　the　private　economy　of　the　human　race；　as　that



would　con