|
米爾頓‧弗萊德曼，羅斯‧弗萊德曼 (MILTON AND ROSE FRIEDMAN) 自由選擇 Free to Choose
經濟自由是政治自由的基本前提。 很少有幾位經濟學家像米爾頓‧弗萊德曼和羅斯‧弗萊德曼在公眾中享有如此高的聲譽。這對夫婦的著作、文章和電視節目宣傳推廣自由市場經濟。米爾頓‧弗萊德曼(1912─ )生於紐約市，就讀於拉特格斯大學、芝加哥大學和哥倫比亞大學。在芝加哥大學，他是芝加哥經濟學學派的主要理論家，該學派批評政府對經濟的干預。1976年，米爾頓‧弗萊德曼獲諾貝爾經濟學獎。他的經濟學理論直接影響了羅納德‧雷根和瑪格麗特‧柴契爾首相的政策。 羅斯‧迪萊克特和米爾頓‧弗萊德曼 1938年結為伉儷。她生於波蘭，就讀於裡德學院，在芝加哥大學取得學位。作為一個作家和經濟學家，她與丈夫合寫了三本闡釋自由市場的暢銷書：《資本主義和自由》(1962)、《自由選擇》(1980)、和《現狀的專制》(1984)。後兩本書以原標題在公共電視上以系列節目的形式播出。 以下是《自由選擇》一書的摘錄。 自從第一批歐洲人來新大陸拓居──1607年在詹姆斯敦，1620年在普利茅斯──美國已像磁石般吸引了冒險家們、逃離暴政壓迫的人或只是試圖讓自己和子女過上較好生活的人們。 最初的涓涓細流在美國革命和美利堅合眾國成立後膨脹了。到十九世紀則變成一股洪水，那時數百萬人越過大西洋，為數較少的人越過太平洋。他們被悲慘生活和專制暴政逼得走投無路，被自由和富裕的希望所吸引。 當他們到達美國後，發現街道上並非黃金鋪地，生活並不舒適安逸。他們並沒有找到充分施展才幹的自由和機會。但憑藉苦幹、創新、節儉和走運，他們多數人成功地實現了自己的不少希望和夢想，足以鼓動親戚朋友加入他們的行列。 美國的歷史是經濟奇蹟和政治奇蹟的歷史，奇蹟的實現全靠把兩套想法付諸實施。巧不可言，這兩套想法都是在同一年，即1776年發表的文件中提出的。 第一套想法體現在《國富論》中，這一偉大著作使蘇格蘭人亞當‧斯密成為現代經濟學之父。該書分析了一個市場系統如何把個人追求自己目標的自由與在經濟領域生產我們的食品、衣物和住宅所需的協同合作結合在一起。亞當‧斯密最重要的見解是：一項交易雙方都能受益，而且只要合作確實是自願的，那麼除非雙方皆受益，否則就不會發生任何交易。在人人都能受益的個人之間的合作不需要任何外力、強迫手段或對自由的侵犯來促成。這就是為什麼，正如亞當‧斯密所說，一個"只考慮自己的利益"的人會由一隻無形的手引導，達到與他的意圖無關的目標。這種目標與個人意圖無關對社會而言並不總是壞事。一個正在為自己的利益奮鬥的人常常比他真正想要為社會謀利時更有效地增進了社會利益。"我從來沒見過那些假裝為公眾利益經商的人做出多少好事。" 第二套想法體現在獨立宣言中。托馬斯‧傑斐遜起草該宣言以表述他的同胞們的普遍觀念。它宣佈歷史上首次有一個新的國家建立在這一原則之上，即每一個人都有權追求自己的價值標準："我們認為這些真理不言自明：人人生而平等，造物主賦予他們若幹不能出讓的權利，包括生活、自由和追求幸福的權利。"…… 美國歷史的很大一部分是圍繞著力圖將獨立宣言的原則付諸實施的嘗試展開的──從關於黑奴問題的最終由一場流血內戰解決的鬥爭，到以後的爭取機會均等的鬥爭，直到最近爭取平等分享成果的鬥爭。 經濟自由是政治自由的基本前提。經濟自由因為允許人民在不受強迫或集中管理的條件下互相協作，縮小了政權的行使範圍。此外，通過分散權力，自由市場對可能產生的任何政權集中的現象可以起抵銷作用。經濟的和政治的權力在同一批人手中的結合肯定是實行專制統治的訣竅。 經濟的和政治的自由相結合在十九世紀的英國和美國皆造成了一個黃金時期。美國甚至比英國取得了更大的繁榮。它從一張白紙開始：階級和地位的痕跡更少；政府的限制更少；有更廣大的肥沃土地讓人們耕耘、開拓、創新；有一片空白的大陸任人們去征服。 自由的巨大創造力在農業上得到的最鮮明、最顯著的表現。當獨立宣言頒佈時，不足三百萬原籍歐洲和亞洲的人(略去土著印地安人不計)居住在美國東海岸的一條狹長地帶。農業是當時的主要經濟活動。平均每二十名勞動者需要有十九人務農以供養全國居民並用剩餘的農產品出口換回一些外國貨。如今，勞動者中不足二十分之一的人務農，為二億二千萬居民提供食品，而且出口剩餘的農產品使美國成為全世界最大的糧食輸出國。 是什麼東西創造了這一奇蹟呢? 顯然不是政府的集中管理──像俄國及其衛星國、南斯拉夫和印度這類目前依賴集中管理的國家，使用勞動力的四分之一至二分之一從事農業，卻經常靠美國的農業來避免大批民眾餓死的悲劇。在美國農業迅速發展的大部分時期中，政府所起的作用微不足道。人們可以得到土地──但它是原先的不毛之地。十九世紀中期以後，土地贈與學院紛紛建立，這些學院通過政府資助的延伸服務傳播資訊和技術。然而，這場農業革命主要源於在一個對一切人──遺憾的是黑奴除外──開放的自由市場中發揮的個人積極性。黑奴制被廢除後，美國農業進入發展最快的時期。數百萬來自世界各地的移民作為獨立的農民或商人自由地為自己工作，或以雙方都同意的條件為別人工作。他們可以任意試驗新技術──假如試驗失敗，他們承擔風險；假如試驗成功，他們獲得利益。他們從政府那裏沒得到多少幫助，更重要的是，他們從政府那裏不會遇到多少干預。…… 具有諷刺意味的是，經濟自由和政治自由的成功對後來的思想家減少了感染力。十九世紀晚期很受局限的政府幾乎不具有危害老百姓的集權，但另一方面這種政府也幾乎不具有能使好人做好事的權力。而一個並不完美的世界裏仍存在著許多罪惡。實際上社會的進步使殘留的罪惡變得更令人討厭了。一如既往，人們把有益的發展當作是必然的事。他們忘了一個強有力的政府對自由造成的危脅。相反，他們為一個更強的政府能夠取得的成績所吸引──只要政府權力掌握在"正直的"人手中。 這些想法於二十世紀初開始影響英國政府。它們在美國的知識份子中被越來越多的人所接受，但直到30年代初的大蕭條時期才對政府政策有明顯影響。……沒人認識到政府對大蕭條的責任──不論當時或現在。相反，大蕭條被廣泛理解為自由市場資本主義的失敗。這一荒誕的說法使公眾與知識份子一樣，對個人和政府的相對責任持變化了的觀點。原先強調個人對自己的命運負責，取而代之的是強調個人如同小卒受自己無法控制的力量衝擊。原先的觀點是政府的作用在充當仲裁人以防止個人之間的強制脅迫行為，取而代之的是這種觀點，即認為政府的作用是充當家長，其職責是強迫一些人幫助另一些人。 在過去的半個世紀中，這些觀點主宰了美國的發展。它們導致各級政府的擴充，導致權力從地方政府和地方控制轉向中央政府和中央控制。政府越來越多地承擔起這一任務：以安全和平等的名義把從一些人那兒取得的東西分給另一些人。 最近幾年的經驗 ──顯示出生產率的增長和下降──令人產生疑問：倘若我們繼續賦予政府更大的權力，委任一個公務員"新階級"，讓他們據說是代表我們花費我們收入的更大一部分，那麼個人的獨創性是否還能繼續克服政府控制的壓抑性後果。或遲或早──或許比我們許多人預料的早──一個龐大得多的政府將會既毀掉我們多虧自由市場才贏得的繁榮，又毀掉獨立宣言如此雄辯地宣揚的人類自由。 我們尚未到不能自拔，無法回頭的地步。作為一個民族我們仍可自由選擇是繼續在"奴役之路"──正如弗利德裡希‧海克的那本深刻而有影響的書的標題所示上快跑呢，還是對政府作更嚴格的限制，並更多地依賴自由的個人之間的自願合作以達到我們的若干目標。我們的黃金時期是否將結束，我國是否會故態 復萌，倒退到人類大多數一貫而且至今仍然處於其中的專制和苦難的境況中去呢? 抑或我們是否將有大智大勇和遠見卓識去改變我們的路線，汲取經驗教訓，從"自由的復活"中獲益 ?…… 附註：
Ever since the first settlement of Europeans in the New World－at Jamestown in 1607 and at Plymouth in 1620－ America has been a magnet for people seeking adventure, fleeing from tyranny, or simply trying to make a better life for themselves and their children. An initial trickle swelled after the American Revolution and the establishment of the United States of America and became a flood in the nineteenth century, when millions of people streamed across the Atlantic, and a smaller number across the Pacific, driven by misery and tyranny, and attracted by the promise of freedom and affluence. When they arrived, they did not find streets paved with gold; they did not find an easy life. They did find freedom and an opportunity to make the most of their talents. Through hard work, ingenuity, thrift, and luck, most of them succeeded in realizing enough of their hopes and dreams to encourage friends and relatives to join them. The story of the United States is the story of an economic miracle and a political miracle that was made possible by the translation into practice of two sets of ideas－ both, by a curious coincidence, formulated in documents published in the same year, 1776. One set of ideas was embodied in The Wealth of Nations, the masterpiece that established the Scotsman Adam Smith as the father of modern economics. It analyzed the way in which a market system could combine the freedom of individuals to pursue their own objectives with the extensive cooperation and collaboration needed in the economic field to produce our food, our clothing, our housing. Adam Smith's key insight was that both parties to an exchange can benefit and that, so long as cooperation is strictly voluntary, no exchange will take place unless both parties do benefit. No external force, no coercion, no violation of freedom is necessary to produce cooperation among individuals all of whom can benefit. That is why, as Adam Smith put it, an individual who "intends only his own gain" is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really in- tends to promote it. "I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." The second set of ideas was embodied in the Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson to express the general sense of his fellow countrymen. It proclaimed a new nation, the first in history established on the principle that every person is entitled to pursue his own values: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." . . . Much of the history' of the United States revolves about the attempt to translate the principles of the Declaration of Independence into practice－ from the struggle over slavery, finally settled by a bloody civil war, to the subsequent attempt to promote equality of opportunity, to the more recent attempt to achieve equality of results. Economic freedom is an essential requisite for political freedom. By enabling people to cooperate with one another without coercion or central direction, it reduces the area over which political power is exercised. In addition, by dispersing power, the free market provides an offset to -whatever concentration of political power may arise. The combination of economic and political power in the same hands is a sure recipe for tyranny. The combination of economic and political freedom produced a golden age in both Great Britain and the United States in the nineteenth century. The United States prospered even more than Britain. It started with a clean slate: fewer vestiges of class and status; fewer government restraints; a more fertile field for energy, drive. and innovation; and an empty continent to conquer. The fecundity of freedom is demonstrated most dramatically and clearly in agriculture. When the Declaration of Independence was enacted, fewer than 3 million persons of European and African origin (i.e., omitting the native Indians) occupied a narrow fringe along the eastern coast. Agriculture was the main economic activity. It took nineteen out of twenty workers to feed the country's inhabitants and provide a surplus for export in exchange for foreign goods. Today it takes fewer than one out of twenty workers to feed the 220 million inhabitants and provide a surplus that makes the United States the largest single exporter of food in the world. What produced this miracle? Clearly not central direction by government－ nations like Russia and its satellites, mainland China, Yugoslavia, and India that today rely on central direction employ from one-quarter to one-half of their workers in agriculture, yet frequently rely on U.S. agriculture to avoid mass starvation. During most of the period of rapid agricultural expansion in the United States the government played a negligible role. Land was made available－ but it was land that had been unproductive before. After the middle of the nineteenth century land-grant colleges were established, and they disseminated information and technology through governmentally financed extension services. Unquestionably, however, the main source of the agricultural revolution was private initiative operating in a free market open to all － the shame of slavery only excepted. And the most rapid growth came after slavery was abolished. The millions of immigrants from all over the world were free to work for themselves, as independent farmers or businessmen, or to work for others, at terms mutually agreed. They were free to experiment with new techniques － at their risk if the experiment failed, and to their profit if it succeeded. They got little assistance from government. Even more important, they encountered little interference from government. ... Ironically, the very success of economic and political freedom reduced its appeal to later thinkers. The narrowly limited government of the late nineteenth century possessed little concentrated power that endangered the ordinary man. The other side of that coin was that it possessed little power that would enable good people to do good. And in an imperfect world there were still many evils. Indeed, the very progress of society made the residual evils seem all the more objectionable. As always, people took the favorable developments for granted. They forgot the danger to freedom from a strong government. Instead, they were attracted by the good that a stronger government could achieve－ if only government power were in the "right" hands. These ideas began to influence government policy in Great Britain by the beginning of the twentieth century. They gained increasing acceptance among intellectuals in the United States but had little effect on government policy until the Great Depression of the early 1930s. . . . Government's responsibility for the depression was not recognized－ either then or now. Instead, the depression was widely interpreted as a failure of free market capitalism. That myth led the public to join the intellectuals in a changed view of the relative responsibilities of individuals and government. Emphasis on the responsibility of the individual for his own fate was replaced by emphasis on the individual as a pawn buffeted by forces beyond his control. The view that government's role is to serve as an umpire to prevent individuals from coercing one another was replaced by the view that government's role is to serve as a parent charged with the duty of coercing some to aid others. These views have dominated developments in the United States during the past half-century. They have led to a growth in government at all levels, as well as to a transfer of power from local government and local control to central government and central control. The government has increasingly undertaken the task of taking from some to give to others in the name of security and equality. . . . The experience of recent years－ slowing growth and declining productivity－ raises a doubt whether private ingenuity can continue to overcome the deadening effects of government control if we continue to grant ever more power to government, to authorize a "new class" of civil servants to spend ever larger fractions of our income supposedly on our behalf. Sooner or later－ and perhaps sooner than many of us expect－ an ever bigger government would destroy both the prosperity that we owe to the free market and the human freedom proclaimed so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence. We have not yet reached the point of no return. We are still free as a people to choose whether we shall continue speeding down the "road of serfdom," as Friedrich Hayek entitled his profound and influential book, or whether we shall set tighter limits on government and rely more heavily on voluntary cooperation among free individuals to achieve our several objectives. Will our golden age come to an end in a relapse into the tyranny and misery that has always been, and remains today, the state of most of mankind? Or shall we have the wisdom, the foresight, and the courage to change our course, to learn from experience, and to benefit from a "rebirth of freedom"? . . . |