list2-第13节
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！
State require individuals to limit their private liberty according
to what these objects require？ Does it not even require that they
should sacrifice for these some part of their earnings； of their
mental and bodily labour； nay； even their own life？ We must first
root out； as Cooper does； the very ideas of 'State' and 'nation'
before this opinion can be entertained。
No； that may be wisdom in national economy which would be folly
in private economy； and vice vers猓弧nd owing to the very simple
reason； that a tailor is no nation and a nation no tailor； that one
family is something very different from a community of millions of
families； that one house is something very different from a large
national territory。 Nor does the individual merely by understanding
his own interests best； and by striving to further them； if left to
his own devices； always further the interests of the community。 We
ask those who occupy the benches of justice； whether they do not
frequently have to send individuals to the tread…mill on account of
their excess of inventive power； and of their all too great
industry。 Robbers； thieves； smugglers； and cheats know their own
local and personal circumstances and conditions extremely well； and
pay the most active attention to their business； but it by no means
follows therefrom； that society is in the best condition where such
individuals are least restrained in the exercise of their private
industry。
In a thousand cases the power of the State is compelled to
impose restrictions on private industry。 It prevents the shipowner
from taking on board slaves on the west coast of Africa； and taking
them over to America。 It imposes regulations as to the building of
steamers and the rules of navigation at sea； in order that
passengers and sailors may not be sacrificed to the avarice and
caprice of the captains。 In England certain rules have recently
been enacted with regard to shipbuilding； because an infernal union
between assurance companies and shipowners has been brought to
light； whereby yearly thousands of human lives and millions in
value were sacrificed to the avarice of a few persons。 In North
America millers are bound under a penalty to pack into each cask
not less than 198 lbs。 of good flour； and for all market goods
market inspectors are appointed； although in no other country is
individual liberty more highly prized。 Everywhere does the State
consider it to be its duty to guard the public against danger and
loss； as in the sale of necessaries of life； so also in the sale of
medicines； &c。
But the cases which we have mentioned （the school will reply）
concern unlawful damages to property and to the person； not the
honourable exchange of useful objects； not the harmless and useful
industry of private individuals； to impose restrictions on these
latter the State has no right whatever。 Of course not； so long as
they remain harmless and useful； that which； however； is harmless
and useful in itself； in general commerce with the world； can
become dangerous and injurious in national internal commerce； and
vice vers狻！n time of peace； and considered from a cosmopolitan
point of view； privateering is an injurious profession； in time of
war； Governments favour it。 The deliberate killing of a human being
is a crime in time of peace； in war it becomes a duty。 Trading in
gunpowder； lead； and arms in time of peace is allowed； but whoever
provides the enemy with them in time of war； is punished as a
traitor。
For similar reasons the State is not merely justified in
imposing； but bound to impose； certain regulations and restrictions
on commerce （which is in itself harmless） for the best interests of
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
