论文部分内容阅读
本文是讨论利益调和学说在米撤斯思想中的地位,他给“调和”一辞所明白规定或暗示的意义,以及他为表明自由放任资本主义对一切人(或几乎一切人)一致有利而提出的论证的一般性质。但主要是探讨了米撤斯著作中“利益调和”的意义。米撤斯给“利益调和“下的定义是:(一)每个人都从分工和维持文明社会当中获得利益。(二)象社会阶级或民族这样大的集团,不可能靠牺牲其他同样大的集团而得到好处。(三)自由放任资本主义乃是一种自然秩序,因而依据定义,凡是建立、维持或符合这种秩序的行为,都不可能给任何人带来损害。如果有人在这种自然秩序中受到削弱的话,那必然是由于他本身的弱点所致。(四)如果自由放任政策得到贯彻并不发生偏差的话,就没有一个人(或极少数人)能够损人以利己。(五)当幸福总量的计算,只涉及阶级内的个人比较而不同样涉及阶级间的个人比较时,利益调和就算是普遍达到了。(六)如果绝大多数人有着共同的利害得失,那末利益调和也就算是普遍达到了。(七)没有一个人(或权少数人)能够损人以利己。
This article discusses the doctrine of the doctrine of interest in Smith’s position, the meaning he prescribes or implies to the term “reconciliation,” and the unanimity it offers to all (or nearly all) of the people to demonstrate that laissez-faire capitalism The general nature of the argument presented. But it mainly discusses the significance of “reconciliation of interests” in Mithus’ writings. Miseus defines “reconciliation of interests” as follows: (1) Everyone benefits from the division of labor and the maintenance of a civilized society. (B) Groups like a social class or a nation can not be benefited by sacrificing other equally large groups. 3. Free laissez-faire capitalism is a natural order. By definition, therefore, it is impossible for any person to establish, maintain or comply with such an order without prejudice to any person. If someone is weakened in this natural order, it must be due to his own weakness. (D) If laissez-faire policies are implemented without deviation, no one person (or a handful of people) can harm others for self-interest. (E) When the calculation of the total amount of happiness involves only personal comparisons within the class and not on the personal comparisons between classes, the reconciliation of interests is even more common. (6) If the overwhelming majority have common gains and losses, the reconciliation of interests will have reached a common goal. (VII) No one (or the right minority) can harm others for self-interest.