|
米爾’’弗萊’曼’羅斯’弗萊’曼 (MILTON AND ROSE FRIEDMAN) ’由選擇 Free to Choose’ ’濟’由’’’’由’基本’提’ ’少有’’’濟學’像米爾’’弗萊’曼’羅斯’弗萊’曼’公眾中’有’’高’’’’’對夫婦’著’’文章’’視’目’傳推’’由市場’濟’米爾’’弗萊’曼(1912’ )生’’’市’’讀’’’’斯’學’’’哥’學’哥’比’’學’’’’哥’學’’’’’哥’濟學學’’’’’論’’該學’批評’’對’濟’’’’1976’’米爾’’弗萊’曼獲諾貝爾’濟學獎’’’’濟學’論’接’’’羅’’’’’’瑪’’’’’’爾首’’’策’ 羅斯’’萊’’’米爾’’弗萊’曼 1938’結’伉儷’’生’’蘭’’讀’里’學’’’’’哥’學’’學’’’’’個’’’’濟學’’’’’夫’’’’本闡釋’由市場’’’’’’資本’’’’由’(1962)’’’由選擇’(1980)’’’’’’’’’(1984)’’’本’’原標’’公’’視’’’’’目’’式播’’ ’’’’’由選擇’’’’’錄’ ’’第’批歐’’’’’陸’’’’1607’’詹’斯敦’1620’’普’’斯’’’國’像磁石’’引’’’’們’’離暴’壓迫’’’’’試圖讓’’’’’’’較’生’’’們’ 最’’’’細’’’國革’’’’堅’眾國成立’膨脹’’’’’’’’變成’’’’’那’數百’’’’’’’’’數較少’’’’太平’’’們’’’生’’’’暴’’’走投’路’’’由’’裕’’望’’引’ 當’們’’’國’’’’街’’’’黃’’’’生’’不舒’’’’’們’’有找’’分’’’’’’由’機’’’憑藉’’’創’’’儉’走’’’們’數’成’’實’’’’’不少’望’夢’’足’鼓動親戚’友’’’們’’’’ ’國’歷’’’濟’蹟’’’’蹟’歷’’’蹟’實’’’把’’’’’諸實’’巧不’言’’’’’’都’’’’’’’1776’’’’文件中提’’’ 第’’’’體’’’國’論’中’’’偉’著’’蘇’蘭’’當’斯’成’’’’濟學之’’該’分’’’個市場’統’’把個’’’’’目標’’由’’’濟領域生產我們’食’’’’’’’’需’’’’’結’’’’’’當’斯’最重’’見解’’’項交’雙方都’’’’而’’’’’’實’’’’’那麼除’雙方’’’’’’’不’’生任’交’’’’’都’’’’個’之間’’’不需’任’’’’’迫手’’對’由’’犯’’成’’’’’什麼’正’’當’斯’’說’’個"’考’’’’’’"’’’由’隻’’’手引導’’’’’’’圖’關’目標’’種目標’個’’圖’關對’’而言’不’’’’’’個正’’’’’’’奮鬥’’’’比’’正’’’’’謀’’’有’’’’’’’’’’"我’’’見’那’假裝’公眾’’’商’’做’’少’’’" 第’’’’體’’’立’言中’托馬斯’傑斐遜’’該’言’’’’’’’們’普’’’’它’’歷’’首次有’個’’國’’立’’’原’之’’’’’個’都有’’’’’’價值標準’"我們’’’’’’不言’’’’’生而平等’’’’賦予’們’’不’’讓’’’’’’生’’’由’’’’福’’’’"’’ ’國歷’’’’’部分’圍繞著’圖’’立’言’原’’諸實’’嘗試’’’’’’關’黑奴問’’最終由’場’’內戰解’’鬥’’’’’’’’機’均等’鬥’’’’最’’’平等分’成’’鬥’’ ’濟’由’’’’由’基本’提’’濟’由’’允’’民’不’’迫’集中管’’條件’互’’’’’’’’’’’’’圍’’’’’’分散’’’’由市場對’’產生’任’’’集中’’’’’’’’’用’’濟’’’’’’’’’’批’手中’結’’’’實’’’統’’’竅’ ’濟’’’’’’由’結’’’’’’’’國’’國’’成’’個黃’’期’’國’’比’國’’’’’’’’’它’’’白’’’’階’’’’’痕跡’少’’’’限’’少’有’’’’’’’’讓’們’’’’’’創’’有’’’白’’陸任’們’’’’ ’由’巨’創’’’’’’’’’最’’’最顯著’’’’當’立’言’’’’不足’百’原’歐’’’’’’(略’’著’’’’不’)’’’’國’’’’’條’’’’’’’’當’’’’’濟’動’平均’’’’勞動’需’有’’’務’’’’’國’民’用剩’’’產’’’換’’’’國’’’今’勞動’中不足’’分之’’’務’’’’億’’’’民提’食’’而’’’剩’’’產’’’國成’’’’最’’糧食輸’國’ ’什麼’’創’’’’’蹟’? 顯’不’’’’集中管’’’像’國及’衛’國’’斯’夫’’’’類目’’賴集中管’’國’’’用勞動’’’分之’’’分之’’’’’’’’’’’國’’’’避’’批民眾’’’’’’’’國’’迅’’’’’部分’期中’’’’’’’用’不足’’’們’’’’’’’’’它’原’’不毛之’’’’’’中期’’’’’贈’學’’’’立’’’學’’’’’資’’’’’務傳播資’’技’’’而’’場’’革’’’源’’’個對’切’’’遺憾’’黑奴除’’’’’’’由市場中’揮’個’’極’’黑奴’’’除’’’國’’’’’’最快’’期’數百’’’’’’’’移民’’’立’’民’商’’由’’’’’’’’’雙方都’’’條件’’’’’’’們’’任’試驗’技’’’假’試驗失敗’’們’擔風’’假’試驗成’’’們獲’’’’’們’’’那裏’’’’少幫’’’重’’’’’們’’’那裏不’’’’少’’’’’ ’有諷’’’’’’’濟’由’’’’由’成’對’’’’’’減少’’’’’’’’’晚期’’局限’’’’’不’有’’老百’’集’’’’’方面’種’’’’’不’有’’’’做’’’’’’而’個’不完’’’’裏仍’’著’’’’’實際’’’’’’’殘’’’’變’’’’’厭’’’’’’’’們把有’’’’當’’必’’’’’們忘’’個’有’’’’對’由’成’’’’’反’’們’’個’’’’’’夠’’’成’’’引’’’’’’’’’握’"正’’"’手中’ ’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’國’’’它們’’國’’識’’中’’’’’’’’接’’’’’30’’’’’蕭條’期’對’’’策有’顯’’’’’’’’識’’’對’蕭條’’任’’不論當’’’’’’反’’蕭條’’’’解’’由市場資本’’’失敗’’’’誕’說’’公眾’’識’’’樣’對個’’’’’’對’任’變化’’’’’原’’調個’對’’’’’’’’’而’之’’’調個’’’’’’’’’’控’’’’衝擊’原’’’’’’’’’用’’當仲裁’’防止個’之間’’’’迫’’’’而’之’’’種’’’’’’’’’’用’’當’’’’職’’’迫’’’幫’’’’’’ ’’’’’個’’中’’’’’’’’’國’’’’它們導’’’’’’’’’導’’’’’方’’’’方控’轉’中央’’’中央控’’’’’’’’’’擔’’’任務’’’’’平等’’’把’’’’那’’’’’’分給’’’’’ 最’’’’’驗 ’’顯示’生產’’’’’’降’’’’產生疑問’倘’我們’續賦予’’’’’’’’’任’個公務Ⅸ"’階’"’讓’們據說’’’我們’’我們收’’’’’部分’那麼個’’’創’’’還’’續’’’’控’’壓抑’’’’’遲’早’’’’比我們’’’’’’早’’’個’’’’’’’’’’毀掉我們’虧’由市場’贏’’’’’’毀掉’立’言’’雄’’’揚’’類’由’ 我們’未’不’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’個民族我們仍’’由選擇’’續’"奴’之路"’’正’弗’’里’’’’’那本’’而有’’’’’標’’示’快’’’還’對’’’’’’’限’’’’’’’賴’由’個’之間’’’’’’’’我們’’’目標’我們’黃’’期’’’結’’我國’’’’’ ’萌’倒’’’類’’數’’而’’今仍’’’’中’’’’’難’境’中’’? 抑’我們’’’有’智’’’遠見’識’改變我們’路’’’’’驗教’’’"’由’’’"中獲’ ?’’ ’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"? . . . ’ |