怎樣進行政治討論之二：認清事實
無獨有偶，Paul Krugman跟我在說同一件事。金融監管違反了所謂的「自由」，但它是對粗暴原始的自由的一種必要限制：
First of all, bank regulation is important even in the absence of bailouts. Don’t trust me, trust Adam Smith. Scotland invented modern banking; it also invented modern banking crises; and Smith, having witnessed such a crisis, favored bank regulations, declaring that
Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respect a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as or the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed.
我翻譯最重要的一段：“But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as or the most despotical”.
「但當少部分人去行使他們的自然自由，而這種自由的行使會損害社會整體安全的時候，這些自由應該要，也在事實上，受到所有政府的法律的約束；對最自由或是最專制的政府而言都是一樣。」
現今大部分自由主義者的一個問題是，他們的思想停留在19世紀末期的資本主義（殖民地資本主義）裏面，對社會科學的發展沒有任何跟進，連主義的開山祖宗的文字也沒有仔細閲讀過。因此主義往往演變成一種宗教。
Filed under: 社會心理, 科學知識, 經濟學, 政治與經濟, 歷史 Tagged: 經濟學, 哲學, 政治科學, 世界政治經濟
from 山中雜記: http://montwithin.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/%e6%80%8e%e6%a8%a3%e7%b6%93%e9%80%b2%e8%a1%8c%e6%94%bf%e6%b2%bb%e8%a8%8e%e8%ab%96%e4%b9%8b%e4%ba%8c%ef%bc%9a%e8%aa%8d%e6%b8%85%e4%ba%8b%e5%af%a6/
