Chapter 8 Chapter 5: Born Equal

"Equality" and "Liberty"—what exactly do these two words in the Declaration of Independence mean, and can the ideals they express be realized in real life?Whether equality and liberty are consistent or contradictory to each other, debates about these issues have had an extremely important impact on American history long before the Declaration of Independence.The search for answers to these questions shaped intellectual opinion, led to bloody wars, and brought about dramatic changes in economic and political institutions.The search for answers to these questions will continue to dominate our political debates.It will affect our future as much as it has affected our past.

In the early days of the Republic, equality meant equality before God; liberty meant the freedom to decide one's destiny. The apparent conflict between the Declaration of Independence and slavery takes center stage.The Civil War finally settled the conflict.The debate then went to another level.Equality is increasingly interpreted as "equal opportunity", that is, everyone should pursue their own goals according to their own abilities, and no one should be hindered by authoritarian obstacles.This is still the primary meaning of equality for most American citizens. Whether it is equality before God or equal opportunity, there is no conflict with the freedom to determine one's own destiny.On the contrary, equality and liberty are two aspects of the same basic value concept—that each person should be regarded as an end in itself.

In recent decades, the word equality has come to have a meaning in the United States quite different from the two interpretations above, that is, equality of outcome.Everyone should have the same standard of living or income, and competition should end.Equality of outcome is clearly incompatible with liberty.Striving to advance this equality is the chief cause of ever-larger governments and the limitations of our liberties. equality before god When Thomas Jefferson wrote "All Men Are Created Equal" at the age of thirty-three, he and his contemporaries did not take the words literally.They did not consider "people"—or what we would call "individuals" today—equal in physical characteristics, emotional responses, skills, and knowledge.Thomas Jefferson himself was a par excellence.At the age of twenty-six, he designed a beautiful house on Monticello (Italian for "hill"), supervised its construction, and reportedly did it himself.During his lifetime, he was an inventor, scholar, author, statesman, governor of Virginia, president of the United States, ambassador to France, and founder of the University of Virginia—in short, we cannot say he was an ordinary man.

Jefferson's and his contemporaries' understanding of equality can be seen from the next passage of the Declaration of Independence: "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. "Before God, all are equal.Each has its own value.He has inalienable rights that cannot be violated by anyone.He is entitled to his own ends and should not be used simply as a tool for the ends of others. "Freedom" is part of the definition of equality.does not conflict with equality. Equality before God—equality of persons*—is important precisely because all people are not the same.Their different values, different hobbies, and different abilities make them want to live very different lives.Equality of persons requires respecting their right to do so, not forcing them to accept the values ​​or judgments of others.Jefferson had no doubts that some people are better than others, or that exceptional men exist.But that doesn't give them the right to rule over others.

① See JR.Ball: The Pursuit of Equality in American History (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1978), pp. 51-58. If an eminent group has no right to impose its will on others, no other group, even if it is a majority of the population, has this right.Every man should be his own ruler, provided he does not interfere with the same rights of others.Government is established to protect this right from other citizens or outside threats, not to allow the majority to rule over the others without restraint. Jefferson wanted to have three achievements during his lifetime engraved on his tombstone: 1. When he was governor, Virginia passed the Religious Freedom Act (the American Bill of Rights, which protects the minority from the majority. "Predecessor), two, drafting the "Declaration of Independence", three, founding the University of Virginia.The U.S. Constitution, drafted by Jefferson's contemporaries, aimed to establish a strong national government to defend the country and promote the welfare of the people as a whole, but at the same time to severely limit its powers to protect individual citizens and state governments from national government domination.Governance democracy refers to allowing the broad masses of the people to participate in government activities, and obviously does not refer to political rule by the majority.

The famous French political philosopher and sociologist A.After Tocqueville made a long visit to the United States in the 1830s, he wrote an immortal book called "Democracy in America".In it, he argues that America's salient feature is equality, not majority rule.He wrote: "In America the aristocratic elements were weak from the beginning. Even if they had not been completely wiped out, they are now completely incapacitated and can no longer have any influence on events. Democratic principles, on the contrary, have grown with time, Greatly strengthened by the development of circumstances and the enactment of laws, this principle not only prevails over all other principles, but becomes the panacea of ​​omnipotence. In America no family or corporation calls the shots.  …

Thus, American society exhibits the most peculiar phenomena.The people there appear to have enjoyed greater equality in wealth and intellect, that is to say, in strength, than any other nation in the world, or any ancient people of written origin. "① Tocqueville praised what he had seen and heard, but he was not a blind flatterer who worried that democracy would be corrupted if taken too far.He writes: "There is ... a manly and legitimate passion for equality which motivates men to power and honor. This passion lifts the humble to the ranks of the great; but there is also a a base abhorrence of equality which drives the weak to bring the strong down to their level, and which makes men prefer the equality of slavery to the inequality of liberty."2

①Alexis de Tocqueville: Democracy in America, two volumes, 2nd edition, translated by Henry Reeve, edited by Francis Bowen (Boston: Publisher John A. Lin, 1863), Vol. 1, pp. 66-67. (The first French edition was published in 1835.) ②Ibid; pp. 67-68. In recent decades, the Democratic Party of the United States has become the primary vehicle for strengthening the power of government that, in the eyes of Jefferson and many of his contemporaries, was the greatest threat to democracy.This is striking evidence of a shift in meaning.The Democratic Party increases the power of government in the name of promoting "equality," a concept that is almost diametrically opposed to the equality that Jefferson equated with liberty and Tocqueville equated with democracy.

Of course, the practices of the Founding Fathers did not always match the theories they preached.The most obvious discrepancy between words and deeds is expressed on the issue of slavery.Thomas Jefferson owned slaves until the day he died, July 4, 1826.During his lifetime, he repeatedly expressed his dismay for slavery. In his notes and correspondence, he mentioned plans to eliminate slavery, but he never publicly proposed any such plans, nor did he campaign against slavery. However, without the abolition of slavery, the country he had painstakingly built would be in flagrant violation of the Declaration of Independence he had written.It is not surprising, then, that during the first decades of the republic, the debate over slavery intensified.The result of this controversy was a civil war.As Abraham Lincoln put it in his Gettysburg Address, the Civil War tested "whether a nation ... born in liberty, that all men are created equal, can long endure."

The country persevered.However, it persisted at the cost of countless lives, property losses and social unrest. Equal Opportunity Once the Civil War abolished slavery and personal equality—equality before God and the law—was close to being realized, the focus of intellectual discussion and government and private policy shifted to another concept, that of equal opportunity. Actual equality of opportunity—the so-called “equality”—is impossible.One child is blind from birth, while the other is sighted; the parents of one child are especially concerned about his well-being from an early age, providing good conditions for cultural learning and intellectual development, while the parents of the other child lead a dissolute life and indulge the child. It doesn't matter; one child is born in America and the other in India, China or the Soviet Union.Obviously, they were not born with equal opportunities.Also, there is no way to make their opportunities equal.

Like equality of persons, equality of opportunity cannot be taken literally.Its true meaning is perhaps best expressed in a phrase from the French Revolution: The future is open to talent.No despotic hindrance can prevent men from attaining a position commensurate with their talents, and whose qualities lead them to seek it.Neither birth, nationality, colour, creed, sex nor any other irrelevant characteristic determines the opportunities open to a man, only his identity determines the opportunities he receives. On this interpretation, equality of opportunity is nothing more than a more concrete specification of what is meant by equality in person and equality before the law.Equality of opportunity, like equality of persons, is meaningful and important precisely because people are born and cultured differently and, therefore, all want and are able to pursue different careers. Like equality of persons, equality of opportunity is not incompatible with liberty.Rather it is an essential part of freedom.It is an interference with the right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" when some are prevented from obtaining a particular place in life worthy of them simply because of a certain racial origin, color, or creed.This denies equality of opportunity, which means sacrificing the liberty of some for the benefit of others. Like every ideal, equality of opportunity is seldom fully realized.Undoubtedly, the most serious departure from this principle was in the Negro question, especially in the South, but also in the North.However, there has also been tremendous progress in achieving equal opportunity for blacks and other groups. The concept of a "melting pot" reflects the goal of equal opportunity.In addition, the expansion of "free" education at the primary, secondary, and primary levels reflected this aim, although this expansion, as we shall see in the next chapter, was not purely a good thing. After the Civil War, equality of opportunity took precedence among the generally accepted scale of values, especially in economic policy.The buzzwords of the day were free enterprise, competition, and laissez-faire.Everyone is free to do any business, engage in any occupation, and purchase any property, as long as the counterparty agrees.If he succeeds, he will have a chance to make a fortune.But if you fail, you will suffer the consequences.There were no autocratic barriers then.The key to success or failure is individual talent, not origin, creed or nationality. A corollary: the development of what many who consider themselves scholars and celebrities dismiss as vulgar materialism.Vulgar materialism emphasizes that money is omnipotent and takes wealth as a symbol of success.As Tocqueville pointed out, this emphasis reflected a reluctance to accept the traditional standards of a feudal aristocratic society that valued birth and family status.The emphasis is clearly replaced by individual talent, and the accumulation of wealth is the most convenient measure of talent. Another corollary, of course, was the enormous emancipation of human capabilities that made America an increasingly productive and vibrant society.Here, social mobility becomes a daily reality.There is also a perhaps surprising corollary, a boom in philanthropy.This is inseparable from the rapid growth of wealth.Under the influence of the prevailing social values ​​at the time, especially the promotion of equal opportunity, the development of philanthropy took the following characteristic forms: such as non-profit hospitals, privately funded colleges, and various institutions aimed at helping the poor. a charitable institution. Of course, in the economic sphere as in other spheres, reality does not always coincide with ideals.At that time, the role of the government was limited to a small scope, and no serious obstacles were set up for enterprises.By the end of the nineteenth century, the government took aggressive steps, notably the Sherman Antitrust Act, to eliminate private barriers to competition.However, some traditions, which are not bound by law, continue to hinder people's freedom to enter certain trades or practice certain professions, and there is no doubt that social traditions make those born in "orthodox" families, born with "orthodox" skin color And adherents of the "orthodox" religion enjoy particularly favorable conditions.However, the rapid economic and social advancement of various less privileged peoples shows that such barriers are by no means insurmountable. As far as the government's measures are concerned, the main departure from the free market has been in foreign trade.Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufacturing sees tariffs to protect domestic industry as part of the American approach.Tariff protection is inconsistent with outright equality of opportunity (see Chapter 2), and it is also inconsistent with free immigration.Until the outbreak of World War I, people from all over the world were free to immigrate to the United States, except for Orientals.One may, however, justify this departure either as regards the necessity of national defense, or as a reason of a very different nature, namely, that equality is domestic only.This latter reason is illogical, but is employed by most advocates of another kind of equality today. equal result The other kind of equality, equal outcome, has become deeply rooted in the hearts of the people in this century.It influenced first the policy of the British government and then the European continent.It has also increasingly influenced U.S. government policy over the past half-century.Among some intellectuals, equality of outcome has become a religious creed: everyone should stop competing at the same time.As Dodo in "Alice's Adventures" said: "Everyone wins and deserves a prize." This concept is the same as the other two concepts, and "equality" cannot be interpreted literally as "equivalent".In fact, no one advocates that everyone, regardless of age, sex or physical fitness, should get the same share of food or clothing, etc.While the goal to be achieved is fairly "fair," "fairness" is a very vague concept, one that is indeed difficult, if not impossible, to define precisely. "A fair distribution to all" is the new slogan to replace Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The concept of equality of outcome is very different from the previous two concepts.Government measures that promote personal equality or equal opportunity increase liberty; government measures that aim at "a fair distribution to all" decrease liberty.If people's income is determined by "fairness", who will decide what is "fair"?Just like everyone asked Dodu in unison: "But who will distribute the prize?" Once "fairness" is separated from the object of comparison, it will not become an objectively determined concept. "Fairness" is the same as "need", it all depends on how you look at it.If all are to have a "fair share," then someone or some group must decide what distribution is fair, and they must be able to impose their decision on others, from property more than "fair" A portion was taken from those who had their share, and given to those who had less than a "fair" share of the property.Can those who make decisions and impose them be equal to those who follow their decisions?Haven't we just entered George Orwell's Animal Farm?There, "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Also, if people's income is determined by "fairness" and not by what they produce, where do the "prizes" come from?What else could motivate people to work and produce?How to decide who will be the doctor, who will be the lawyer, who will pick up the trash, who will sweep the streets, and what will ensure that people accept the tasks assigned to them and perform them according to their ability?Obviously, only by force or the threat of force. The point here is not only that practice will separate from ideal.Like the other two concepts of equality, they are of course to be separated.But even more important: there is a fundamental conflict between the ideal of "fair distribution" or its predecessor "distribution according to need" and the ideal of personal liberty.This conflict exists in all attempts by men to make equality of outcome the supreme principle of social organization.Its inevitable end result is the emergence of terrorist states: the Soviet Union, China, and most recently Cambodia are clear and convincing examples.Moreover, even the use of terror has not equalized the results.In each of the above-mentioned countries, by any standard, there is widespread inequality, not only in power but also in material life between rulers and ruled. ① ① Refer to Smith's "Russians" and Kaiser's "Russia: People and Power".Nick Eberstadt: "Has China Failed?" "New York Review of Books, April 5, 1979, p. 37.Eberstadt noted in the article that "the distribution of income in China appears to have remained largely unchanged since 1953." Far less extreme measures in the West, in the name of promoting equality of outcomes, have had the same effect, if to a lesser degree.They also restrict individual liberty, but they also fall short of their goals.This illustrates the impossibility of specifying a "fair share" in a generally acceptable manner, or making members of society feel satisfied with the "fair" treatment they receive.On the contrary, the more you try to expand the equality of results, the more dissatisfaction you will arouse. Much of the moral fervor that drives equality of outcome comes from the widespread belief that it is unfair for some children to be superior to others simply because their parents happen to be rich.This is of course unfair.However, inequity can take many forms.It can take the form of inheritance of property, such as inheritance of bonds, stocks, houses, and factories, or of inheritance of talent, such as inheritance of musical talent, physical strength, and mathematical genius.Property inheritance is more susceptible to interference than talent inheritance.But from an ethical point of view, what is the difference between the two? However, many people resent inheritance of property, but don't care about inheritance of talent. Now, let's think about this from a parent's perspective.If you want your child to have a higher income throughout his life, there are a variety of ways you can do it.You can spend money for him (her) to be educated so that he (she) can work in a high-paying job; or you can open a shop for him so that he can get a higher income than the employees; you can also Leave him a fortune and let him live a prosperous life with the income from the property.From an ethical point of view, what is the difference between these three ways of using property? Besides, if the state gives you any money left after taxation, does the state only allow you to use it to live a life of profligacy, but not Do you leave money to your children? The ethical issues involved here are subtle and complex, and cannot be resolved by the simplistic formula of "fair distribution to all."For, if we were to do so at all, we would have to make up for the lack of talent by giving the least musically gifted youth the greatest amount of musical training possible, while depriving those who were more musically gifted of the opportunity to receive good music. Opportunities for training; the same goes for other aspects of the inheritance of individual talents.It may be "fair" for less gifted youth, but is it "fair" for better gifted youth, let alone those who have to work to pay to train less gifted youth, or who could People who benefited from cultivating talented people did not get it. Life just isn't fair.It is tempting to believe that government can correct what has arisen naturally.But it's equally important to recognize how much we benefit from precisely the injustices we lament. It's not fair that Marlene Dietrich was born with alluring and beautiful thighs and that Muhammad Ali was born with what made him a champion.But on the other hand, the millions of people who enjoy watching Marlene Dietrich's thighs or Ali's fist fights benefit from the fact that nature has unfairly produced Dietrich and Ali.If all the people in the world were the same, what kind of world would this world be? It sure wasn't fair that Muhammad Ali made millions of dollars a night.But if, in pursuit of some abstract ideal of equality, Ali is not allowed to earn more from an evening of boxing (or daily preparations for it) than a day's menial labor on the docks, Wouldn't this be even more unfair to those who like to watch him fight? Even if they can do so, the result will be to deprive people of the opportunity to appreciate Ali's boxing skills.Had Ali been limited to docker-like pay, we doubt Ali would have endured the grueling training before the game and committed himself to the kind of fight he experienced. Another aspect of the complex issue of fairness can be illustrated by games of chance such as poker.At the beginning of the night, the number of chips of each gambler is equal.But after playing for a while, the numbers will not be equal.At the end of the night, some were big winners and others were big losers.According to the ideal of equality, does the winner have to return the winnings to the loser? If this is the case, the game will become uninteresting, and even the loser will find it boring.They might play it once or twice, but would they play it again if they knew that, win or lose, the end would be the same as the beginning? The relevance of this example to the real world may be much greater than we initially imagined.Every day, we each have to make some decisions and take chances.Sometimes it is a big opportunity, such as deciding what career to pursue, whom to marry, buying a house or making a large investment.More often it's small opportunities like deciding what movie to go to, jaywalking without being in heavy traffic, buying this type of insurance or that.The question each time is who decides what opportunities we have, which in turn depends on who bears the consequences of those decisions.We can make decisions if we bear the consequences.But if someone else bears the consequences, then should we or can we make the decision? If you use another person’s money to play cards for him, will he allow you to make decisions freely? To some extent limit your power to make decisions, and set some rules for you to follow?To take an entirely different example: If the government (i.e., your taxpaying partners) is responsible for compensating your house for flood damage, is it still at your discretion to rebuild your house on a flooded plain?It is no accident that government interference in individual decisions has grown alongside the movement for "a fair share for all." It has been the system throughout most of our country's history that the people make their own choices and bear most of the consequences of those decisions.It is this system that has spurred the Fords, the Edisons, the Eastmans, the Rockefellers, and the Penneys to transform our society over the past two hundred years.It was this system that gave incentives to others to take risks and pay to finance the adventurous ventures of these ambitious inventors and industrial tycoons.Of course, there have been many losers along the way, perhaps more losers than winners.Their names are forgotten.However, most of them are willing to take risks.They know they are taking a chance.And whether it succeeds or fails, society as a whole benefits from their willingness to take the chance. The wealth produced by this system comes primarily from the development of new goods or services, from new ways of producing those goods or services, and from new ways of distributing them widely.The resulting increased wealth for the entire society and increased welfare for the people are many times greater than the wealth accumulated by these entrepreneurs.Henry Ford made a fortune, and the country got a cheap and reliable means of transportation and mass-produced technology.In addition, most of the personal wealth is finally used for social welfare.The Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation are just the most notable of countless private philanthropic endeavors.These private philanthropies are an outstanding result of the operation of a system that conforms to "equal opportunity" and "freedom".The "equal opportunities" and "freedom" here are not equality and freedom in the sense we understand now. We need only cite one small example of the flourishing of philanthropy in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.In a book on "Cultural Philanthropy in Chicago from the 1880s to 1907," Helen Horowitz writes: "At the turn of the last century and the end of this century, Chicago was a city driven by opposing forces: on the one hand, it was a commercial center dealing in the basic commodities produced by industrial society; on the other hand, it was a place of thriving cultural enterprises. As one reviewer put it, the city is 'a strange amalgam of pork and Plato.' "Chicago's cultural movement was marked by the establishment of some of the city's great cultural institutions in the 1880s and early 1890s, such as the Art Institute, the Newbury Library, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the University of Chicago , the Field Museum, the Creel Library.  … "These institutions are the new face of the city. Whatever their original motives, they are for the most part organized, maintained, and controlled by a band of businessmen. . . . Although privately supported and managed, these institutions are designed for whole cities. Their trustees turned to cultural philanthropy, not chiefly for the satisfaction of personal artistic or academic aspirations, but for social ends. These industrialists, troubled by social forces beyond their control, were filled with The idealistic mood of culture, which sees museums, libraries, symphony orchestras, and universities as means of purifying and invigorating cities (Renaissance). Philanthropy is by no means limited to cultural institutions.As Horowitz writes elsewhere, it was "an activity that exploded in many different ways."Chicago is not an isolated example.In Horowitz's words, "Chicago seemed to be America in microcosm." ② It was during this period that, under the initiative of Jane Adams, Chicago established the Hull Workhouse.The Hull Workhouse was the first of many workhouses to be established throughout the country.These workhouses were used to spread culture and education among the poor and to help them solve their everyday problems.In addition, many hospitals, orphanages and other charitable institutions were established during this period. ① Helen Lefke and Chengz Horowitz: "Culture and the City" (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1976), p. IX-X. ② Ibid., pages 212 and 31. There is no conflict between free-market institutions and the pursuit of broad social and cultural goals, or between free-market institutions and sympathy for the less fortunate, whether that sympathy takes the form of private philanthropy in the nineteenth century or Take the increasingly twentieth-century form of aid through government—as long as they all reflect a desire to help others.The two forms of government assistance to the poor may seem similar but are vastly different: the first is that 90% of us agree to pay our own taxes to help the bottom 10%.In the second form, 80% of people vote for the top 10% to pay taxes to help the bottom 10%.This is William Graham Sumner's famous example of B and C deciding what D should do for A. ①The first form may be wise or unwise; it may be an efficient or inefficient way of helping the less fortunate.However, it is consistent with beliefs in equal opportunity and liberty.The second form pursues equality of results, which is completely opposite to freedom. ① "The Forgotten Man", see Albert G.Keller and Maurice R. Davis, eds. The Collected Works of William G. Sumner (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934); Vol. 1, pp. 466-496. Who is in favor of equal outcomes? Few people supported the goal of equality of outcome, although among intellectuals it became almost a religious dogma, proclaimed in the speeches of statesmen and the preambles to laws.Governments, the most ardent egalitarian intellectuals, and the general public all act to make this talk of equality of outcomes empty talk. In the case of government, an obvious example is the policy on lotteries and gambling.It is widely and rightly believed that New York State, and New York City in particular, is a bastion of egalitarian sentiment.However, the New York state government operates a lottery and facilitates gambling at horse races.To entice citizens to buy lottery tickets and bet on horse races, it advertised heavily in order to reap huge profits for the government.At the same time, it does its best to suppress "digital lottery" gambling, which is more profitable than government lotteries (especially given that the winners are prone to tax evasion).Britain, a bastion if not the birthplace of egalitarian ideas, allowed private casinos and gambling on horse-racing and other sports.Gambling has indeed become a national pastime and a great source of government revenue. In the case of intellectuals, the clearest evidence is their failure to put into practice what so many of them preach.It is up to them to try for themselves how to implement equality of results.First of all, it is necessary to determine what the so-called equality refers to.Just within the United States, within a select group of countries, or throughout the world?What kind of income is used as the standard, personal?family?One year, ten years, or lifetime, does it just refer to income in the form of currency?Or does it also include the following non-monetary items, such as self-occupied houses, self-grown food, and non-paid services of family members, especially housewives?What about physical and mental pros and cons? However you decide these questions, as long as you are an egalitarian, you can estimate what monetary income fits your concept of equality.If your actual income is above this standard, you can keep the part within the standard and distribute the excess to people whose income is below this standard.If your criteria were to include the whole world, as most egalitarian rhetoric advocates, then the average annual income per person would be less than $200 (in 1979 dollars), an amount that would be in line with most The notion of equality as spoken by egalitarian rhetoric.That's about the average income per person worldwide. Irving Kristol's so-called "new class": that is, government bureaucrats, academics funded by government funds to conduct research or employed by government-funded "think tanks", members of many so-called "general interest" or "public policy" groups Journalists, journalists, and others who practice journalism are among the most ardent advocates of the doctrine of equality.They remind us, however, of an old (if unjust) adage about the mansion priests: "They came to the New World to do well, and they ended up doing well." Members of the New Class were generally Among the highest earners in society, and, for many of them, the promotion of equality, and the efforts to pass and enforce laws in this regard, have proved to be effective means of attaining this high income.We are all prone to equating our own welfare with social welfare. Of course, an egalitarian might protest that he is just a drop in the ocean.If everyone else is forced to do that, he will be happy to redistribute what he considers to be more than equal income.On the one hand, it is a mistake to think that coercion will change things—even if everyone else does, his contribution to other people's income will still be a drop in the ocean.Whether he was the only donor or one of many, his personal contribution was always that great.He could, indeed, make his gift a more valuable thing by giving it directly to the poorest of those he thought fit recipients.另一方面，强制手段将使事态发生根本的变化：如果这类再分配行动是自愿的话。将要出现的社会将同强迫人们进行再分配而出现的那种社会截然不同。按照我们的标准，前一种社会比后一种社会好千百倍。 如果有人认为实行强制性平等的社会更可取，那他们可以亲身实践一下。他们可以加入我国或其它国家的许多现有的公社，也可以建立新的公社。而且，任何一批希望这样生活的人能够自由地这样做，当然是完全符合人身平等、机会均等和自由等信念的。我们的论点，即对结果均等的支持不过是口头上说说而已，从希望参加那种公社的人数之少，和那些已经建立的公社之脆弱，得到了有力的支持。 美国的平等主义者可能会反驳说，公社的数量少和脆弱是一个“资本主义”占优势的社会对它们进行污蔑和因此而使它们受到歧视的结果。这在美国可能是真的，但是，正如罗伯特·诺吉克①所指出的，在有一个国家这不是真的，那个国家就是以色列。在那里，恰恰相反，平等主义公社受到高度重视和赞赏。在犹太人到巴勒斯坦定居的早期，集体农庄发挥了重要作用，后来，继续在以色列国中发挥重要作用。以色列国领导人中有很大一部分来自集体农庄。集体农庄的成员非但不会受到非议，反而享有很高的社会地位，受到人们的欢迎。每个人都可以自由加入或离开集体农庄，集体农庄是有活力的社会组织。然而，不论在任何时候，肯定也包括今天，自愿加入集体农庄的人从未超过以色列犹太人口的5％。我们可以把5％这一比例看作是自愿加入集体农庄的最多人数，这部分人自愿选择一种强制实行结果均等的制度，而不愿要不平等的、多样性的和有机会的制度。 ①罗伯特·诺吉克：《谁将选择社会主义？》载杂志，1978年5月，第22－23页。 公众对于累进所得税的态度各不相同。最近，在一些还没采用累进所得税的州曾就征收这种税进行了公民投票，在另外一些州则就提高累进率进行了公民投票，结果一般都被否决了。另一方面，联邦所得税的累进率则很大，至少在名义上是如此，尽管它也包含许多实际上可以大大降低累进率的条款（即“漏洞”）。这表明，公众对于重新分配适当数量的税收还是能够容忍的。 但是，我们要冒昧地说一句，人们对雷诺、拉斯维加斯和大西洋城*的喜爱，也同样真实地反映了公众的偏好，其真实程度丝毫不亚于联邦所得税、《纽约时报》和《华盛顿邮报》的社论以及《纽约书评》所反映的情况。 *雷诺、拉斯维加斯和大西洋城系三个盛行赌博的美国城市。 - translator 平等政策的后果 我们在制定自己的政策时，可以借鉴西方国家的经验。我们与它们具有共同的知识和文化背景，我们的许多价值概念都来源于它们。英国可能是最有启发性的例子。它在十九世纪实行机会均等方面以及在二十世纪实行结果均等方面，都起了表率作用。 自第二次世界大战结束以来，英国的国内政策，一直为寻求更广泛的结果均等所左右。政府采取了一项又一项措施，旨在从富人手里拿走一些财富，分配给究人。所得税率不断提高，最后提高到占不动产收入的98％和“所挣”收入的83％，而且遗产税也越来越重。在向失业者和老年人提供救济的同时，国家还大规模地增加了医疗、住房和其他福利事业。不幸的是，其结果与那些对几世纪来一直占优势的阶级结构十分恼火的人所希望的大不相同。虽然财富被广泛地重新分配，但到头来分配还是不公平。 实际上只是产生了新的特权阶级来代替或补充原有的特权阶级。新的特权阶级包括：握有铁饭碗的官僚们，不论在职期间还是退休之后，他们都受到保护，不受通货膨胀的影响；工会头头们，即劳工运动的贵族，他们自称为最受压迫的工人讲话，但实际上他们却是这块土地上收入最高的工人；还有新的百万富翁们，他们善于规避从国会和官僚机构中倾泻出来的法律和规章，他们想方设法地逃税漏税；并把财产转移到收税官力所不及的海外去。如果说这是收入和财富的巨大改组，那倒是真的；但如果说这是更大的平等，却不大象。平等运动在英国失败，并不是由于采取了错误的方法，尽管某些方法的确是错误的；不是由于管理不善，尽管某些方面的管理的确很糟；也不是由于管理人员无能，尽管某些管理人员的能力的确很差。平等运动的失败有其更为根本的原因。它违背了人类的一个最基本的天性，即亚当·斯密所说的，“每个人都为改善自身的境况而作一贯的、经常的和不间断的努力。”①我们还可以补充一句：人们也为改善其子孙后代的境况而努力。当然，斯密所说的“境况”不单指物质福利，尽管物质福利肯定是其中的一个组成部分。他所想的是更为广阔的概念，这一概念包括了所有人用来判断自己成就的价值标准，特别是那种在十九世纪曾促使慈善事业蓬勃发展的社会价值标准。 ①见亚当·斯密：《国富论》，上卷，商务印书馆1979年版，第315页。 当法律妨碍人民去追求自己的价值时，他们就会想办法绕道走。他们将规避法律，违反法律，或者离开这个国家。我们当中几乎没有人会相信这样的道德规范，认为强迫人们为他们不赞成的目的交出自己创造的许多东西去帮助不认识的人是合理的。当法律同大多数人认为是合乎道德的而且正当的准则发生矛盾时，他们就会违反法律，不论这种法律是在促进平等这样高尚的理想的名义下通过的，还是赤裸裸地为一个集团的利益而牺牲其他集团。 在这种情况下，人们守法，只是出于害怕受到惩罚，而不是出于正义感和道德观念。 当人们开始违反某一类法律时，不守法的情况就会不可避免地波及所有的法律，甚至影响到那些公认为是合乎道德的和正当的法律，如反对暴力、盗窃和破坏行为的法律。说来也许难以置信，近几十年中，英国有增无减的犯罪活动，很可能正是平等运动的后果。 另外，平等运动把一些最有才能的、最训练有素的、最生气勃勃的公民赶出了英国，而使美国和别的国家大受其益，它们使这些人有更好的机会为自己的利益发挥才能。最后，谁能怀疑平等运动对工作效率和劳动生产率的影响呢，我们可以肯定地说，这就是英国在过去的几十年中在经济增长方面大大地落后于它的欧洲邻国、美国、日本和其他国家的一个主要原因。 我们美国在促进结果均等方面没有英国走得那么远。然而，许多同样的后果已经显露出来了：例如，促进平等的措施未能达到预期的目标，财富以决非平等的方式进行再分配，犯罪率上升，劳动生产率和工作效率下降。 资本主义和平等 世界上任何地方都存在着收入和财富的严重的不平等。这使我们大多数人感到愤慨。看到一些人在奢侈挥霍，另一些人则饱尝贫困的煎熬，谁都会感慨万端。在过去的一个世纪里，流传着一种神话，说自由市场资本主义，即我们所说的机会均等，加深了这种不平等，在这种制度下是富人剥削穷人。 没有比这更荒谬的说法了。凡是容许自由市场起作用的地方，凡是存在着机会均等的地方，老百姓的生活都能达到过去做梦也不曾想到的水平。相反，正是在那些不允许自由市场发挥作用的社会里，贫与富之间的鸿沟不断加宽，富人越来越富，穷人越来越穷。这种情况发生在社会地位可以世袭的封建社会，如中世纪的欧洲、独立前的印度以及现代南美洲的许多国家。也发生在社会地位取决于能否进入政府部门的实行中央计划的社会，如俄国、中国和独立后的印度。甚至发生在象这三个国家那样以促进平等的名义引入中央计划的社会。 俄国是一个由两部分人组成的国家：一边是官僚、共产党官员、技术人员组成的一小撮上层特权阶级，另一边是今天的生活比他们的祖先好不到哪儿去的广大群众。上层阶级可以进入特殊商店和学校，可以得到各式各样的奢侈品；而广大群众却注定只能享受基本的生活必需品。我记得有一次在莫斯科看到一辆大型轿车，就向向导打听它的价钱，向导说：“噢，那不出售，是专供政治局委员用的。”最近由美国记者写的几本书，极为详细地记录了俄国上层阶级的特权生活同广大群众贫困生活的差距。①值得注意的是，甚至在下层，俄国工厂里的一个工头与一个普通工人在平均收入上的差距，也比在美国工厂大。无疑，苏联工头的收入应该更高些，因为美国工头担心的毕竟只是被解雇，而苏联工头还要担心被枪毙。 ①参看史密斯的《俄国人》和凯泽的《俄国：人民与权力》。 另外，中国也是一个在有政治权势的人与其他人之间、城市与乡村之间、城市里一些工人与其他工人之间收入悬殊的国家。一位敏锐的中国问题学者曾经写道：“1957年在中国的富庶地区与贫穷地区之间的不平等，可能比世界上除巴西外的任何较大国家都大。”他援引另一位学者的话说：“这些例子说明，中国工业部门的工资结构并不比其他国家的工资结构平等多少。”他在总结他对中国的平等的考察时说：“中国今天的收入是怎样平均分配的呢；肯定不如台湾或南朝鲜来得平均。……但另一方面，中国的收入分配又显然要比巴西和南美洲平均……我们不能不得出这样的结论：中国远非一个完全平等的社会。事实上，中国在收入上的差别可能要比一些公认为是'法西斯'分子当权而广大群众遭受剥削的国家大得多。”① 工业的进步、机器的改进、所有新时代的伟大奇迹，对于有钱人来说，关系较少。古代希腊的富翁，从现代的供水管道得不到什么好处：有跑步的仆人提水代替自来水。电视机和收音机也不足道，罗马的贵族们能够在家里享受到最好的乐师和演员的表演，能够把最出色的艺术家留在家里。现成的服装、超级市场和其他许多现代文明给他们的生活增添不了什么色彩。他们也许欢迎运输和医疗上的改进，而其他一切西方资本主义的伟大成就，主要是增长了普通老百姓的利益。这些成就为人民群众提供了方便和乐趣，而在过去，这些只是富人和权势者专有的特权。 1848年，约翰·斯图亚特·穆勒写道：“迄今为止，所有机器发明是否减轻了人们日常的艰苦劳动，是很值得怀疑的。机器发明使更多的人过单调乏味的生活，也使更多的制造商发财致富，同时增加了中产阶级的舒适。按其性质来说，机器发明必将使人类命运发生重大变化，但目前还没有带来重大变化。”② ①尼克·埃伯施塔特：《中国：成功了多少？》，载《纽约书评》，1979年5月3日，第40－41页。 ②约翰·斯图亚特·穆勒：《政治经济学原理》（1848年），第9版（伦敦：朗曼和格林公司，1886年），第2卷，第332页（第9编，第6章）。 今天谁也不能再说这种话了。只要从工业世界的这一头走到那一头就会发现，目前仍然从事极艰苦劳动的，几乎只有那些开展体育活动的人。要找到日常的艰苦劳动没有被机器发明所减轻的人，那你只有到非资本主义世界去找：俄国、中国、印度、孟加拉国以及南斯拉夫的一些地区；或者到较为落后的资本主义国家去找：非洲、中东、南美洲，以及前不久的西班牙或意大利。 in conclusion 一个社会把平等——即所谓结果均等——放在自由之上，其结果是既得不到平等，也得不到自由。使用强力来达到平等将毁掉自由，而这种本来用于良好目的的强力，最终将落到那些用它来增进自身利益的人们的手中。 另一方面，一个把自由放在首位的国家，最终作为可喜的副产品，将得到更大的自由和更大的平等。尽管更大的平等是副产品，但它并不是偶然得到的。一个自由的社会将促使人们更好地发挥他们的精力和才能，以追求自己的目标。它阻止某些人专横地压制他人。它不阻止某些人取得特权地位，但只要有自由，就能阻止特权地位制度化，使之处于其他有才能、有野心的人的不断攻击之下。自由意味着多样化，也意味着流动性。它为今日的落伍者保留明日变成特权者的机会，而且在这一过程中，使从上到下的几乎每个人都享有更为圆满和富裕的生活。