Month: February 2020

No comments

Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 7: Interpersonal Relations: Voluntary Exchange

  By
In this chapter Rothbard spends a good number of words talking about economics rather than ethics. Yes, trade is beneficial to men’s prosperity. But the important point, ethically speaking, is that trade is just. この章でロスバードが哲学じゃなく経済学のことをたくさん語る。はい、交換は人の繁栄に良い影響を持つが、哲学的に語るべきことは「交換は正しい」だ。
Once having established that ownership is just (first of one’s body and labor, then of unowned natural goods transformed by one’s labor), we see that giving or exchanging ownership is also just. Also note that trading external property for labor is just, as well (that is, employment cannot be attacked as inherently unjust). 所有することが正しいで初めて、まず自分の体と労働、そして労働で無主した自然を変えたもの、所有を上げるや変わるも正しい。特に所有を労働と交換することも正しくて雇用も正しい。
Rothbard does claim that “voluntary slavery-” that is, a lifelong labor contract- is invalid. He claims that in making such a contract, the laborer is “alienating his will,” which is impossible. Before I stated that to have a right to control (ownership), one must have a means of control. It is true that one cannot acquire control over another’s will, and therefore cannot own it. Rothbard says that in a lifelong labor contract, “this would mean that his future will over his own person was being surrendered in advance.” But this proves far too much; in a five-year labor contract, does not the laborer surrender his will? Is he not denying his four-years-later self his rightful exercise of his will? If so, then the same would be true of a five-minute contract, making all labor salable only in pay-as-you-go arrangements; if not, the same would be true of a five-century contract, making the “slavery” perfectly justified. ロスバードは志願奴隷（一生労働契約）が不正と言う。そういう契約で労働者が不可な意思疎外を成立する、と。前章の話で制御する権利を持つために制御する方法が必要だと言った。他人の意思を制御する方法は無いため、所有物になれない。ロスバードは一生労働契約で「事前に未来の意志を委ねた意味をする」と言うが、証明するものは多すぎる。五年労働契約にも労働者が意思を委ねるじゃないか？四年後の自分に意思を行使する権利を否定するじゃないか？そうだったら、五分契約もそうだから、労働購買は使った分だけになる。そうでなければ、五百年契約もそうではなくて、そんな“奴隷状態”をも言い開くだろう。
The wisdom of selling oneself into slavery is questionable, but its justice can be denied only if one denies the justice of all labor contracts whatsoever. 自分を奴隷に売るのは知恵なのかは疑えるが、すべての労働契約を否定しないとその正を否定できない。
No comments

Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 6: A Crusoe Social Philosophy

  By
“Men act,” famously began Mises’s Human Action. As for economics, it’s a good starting point for philosophy in general. Rothbard derives a lot of the usual conclusions, using the Robinson Crusoe scenario: a man isolated on an uninhabited island. 「人は行動する」とミーゼス（Ｍｉｓｅｓ）の人間行動（Ｈｕｍａｎ　Ａｃｔｉｏｎ）が名高く始まった。経済学のように哲学にも良い始まりだ。ロスバードもそれから始まり、無人島にあったロビンソン・クルーソーの脚本を語って様々な結論につく。
I would criticize Rothbard for assuming in this scenario that man can own natural objects that he transforms. Here, in this isolation, we can abstract the entities down to “Man” and “Nature.” Why does man get to own nature; why does nature not own man? The answer is obvious to all but the most addle-brained environmentalists, but it is well to elaborate it; we may need to deal with those environmentalists later. この脚本でロスバードは人が自然のものを所有にすることができると思い込んだことに、拙者が異論したい。孤独なこの脚本であるのは「人」と「自然」だ。どうして自然が人をじゃなく、人が自然を所有にできる？脳の腐った環境活動家にしか答えが当然だけど、細かく説明するがいい。その環境活動家を取り組むことになるかも。
Ownership is the right to control. To have a right to control, one must have a means of control. Rothbard recognizes this when he disclaims Crusoe’s claim upon the whole island as “sheer empty vainglory” and instead asserts that he only owns what he has actual control over- what he applies his labor to. 所有は制御の権利だ。制御の権利を持つために制御の方法が必要だ。ロスバードもクルーソーの全島の所有権利の主張を空っぽな虚栄として否定した。自分の労働で触った制御したものしか所有しないと認めた。
Why does man get to own pieces of nature? Because he can, through labor, control those pieces of nature. Why can Nature not own man? Because Nature cannot control man. If it could, then it would (according to, again, the environmentalists) obviously exercise its control over man, to limit the harm that he does to it, and to bend man’s abilities to its service. なぜ人が自然のものを所有できる？労働でその自然のものを制御できるから。なぜ自然が人を所有できない？自然が人を制御できないから。もしそうできれば、（環境活動家に聞けば）人からの被害を制限と人からの利益を増加のために人への制御を使用しただろう。
We will have cause to speak of environmentalists more in the future, but for the topic at hand, this will suffice. 後ほども環境活動家のことを語ることになるが、この点はこれで十分としよう。
Rothbard makes another assertion that I disagree with, that maintenance of life and health is axiomatic, and therefore actions detrimental to life and health are immoral. “Men act” is an axiom; does this mean that opposition to some action by a man is immoral? If Rothbard has proven any axiom about the lives of men here, it is, “Men live,” which is considerably less robust than the claim that men should pursue life and health. ロスバードがまた拙者と違う意見を昇進する。人には生命と健康の維持が公理で、その生命と健康に害する行動は極道だと。「人は行動する」は公理だ。と言ったことで、ある人の行動に反対することも極道になるか？ロスバードが公理を示したのなら、それは「人は生命する」になる。言った公理よりよほど弱い思想だ。
Regarding that, Rothbard quite consistently supported Liberty against Power. This struggle has extended back into antiquity, as Rothbard himself has documented in his historical books and articles. Yet, in the many times when people have taken action against Power- often conscientiously in ways that they knew would be very detrimental to their wellbeing- I don’t recall Rothbard anywhere declaring that these people were immoral for acting in ways that brought harm to themselves. それについて、ロスバードは一貫していて「自由」を「権力」に対して支持した。 ロスバードの歴史的な記事で書いたように その競争は古代から延長する。だけどいくつもの時に権力と争った人達が健康にものすごく害になったことに、ロスバードが一度でもその人達の行動は自害なため極道と書いた覚えはない。
No comments

Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 5: The Task of Political Philosophy

  By
Rothbard doesn’t plan on elaborating all of natural law; just the ethics, or the political philosophy, of it. There is considerably more, but it is outside the scope of the book. ロスバードには自然法の全体を説明するつもりは無い。この本では倫理、政治哲学、だけで良い。全体にはもっとあるが、この本の範囲外だ。
He laments that in the twentieth century, the natural law built up to that time (as described in the last chapter, it led to radical movements, which greatly benefited humanity) was largely abandoned for other ideas. Rothbard describes the replacement of political philosophy by political science, echoing earlier references to scientistics, who rejected natural law for being religious and “unscientific.” 二十世紀では前章の抜本的な運動の基本となった自然法が捨てられたことを悲しむ。政治哲学が政治科学に入れ替わられた。第一章の言った科学万能派の思想のように自然法は科学で無い神学であると言われて否定された。
These political scientists follow a method massively unsuited to coming to an understanding of human action: they gather evidence and induce from it theories, then try to use the theories as guides for action. This does not work and cannot work. I think it is possible that no being can come to a perfect scientistic understanding of itself, much less of a society of beings like itself. But Rothbard argues instead that scientistic methods cannot work because humans possess free will, which scientists of the physical laws (whom political scientists attempt to emulate) do not have to grapple with. 政治科学者は人間行動を解明するために沐猴にして冠す方法を使う：情報を集まって、それから推測を帰納して、そして推測で行動を導く。効果は失敗だった。失敗しかできない方法だ。自分を科学的に完璧な解明ができる生き物なんてありえない、と拙者が思う。だがロスバードは自由意志を持つ人類が物理の科学の対象と違って情報集めだけで分かられない。政治科学者は物理の真似をしようとしても不可能だから失敗しかない道だ。
Regardless why the scientistic approach does not and cannot work, the philosophical approach- to use man’s reason to comprehend his nature and the nature of his environment, then to deduce laws of this nature- can and does work. 科学万能派の失敗の理由がどっちにしろ、哲学の方法‐人の理性を使って自身の性質と環境の性質を分かってその性質の法則を演繹する‐は有効だ。
No comments

Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 4: Natural Law and Natural Rights

  By
This chapter is an historical review of natural rights, within natural law. Notably, natural law followed a vastly mistaken path for a very long time: It asked, “What should the state do?” rather than, “What should individuals do?”- that is, its program was statist, rather than individualist. 自由の倫理の第四章は自然法の天賦人権の歴史だ。今と違って、長い時間に間違えた道を進んだ。「個人はどうすれば」じゃなく、［政府はどうすれば」と聞き、政府的な計画を立った。
Natural law was therefore impotent for much of history. John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Government, was among the earliest to reform natural law on individualist grounds, finally giving it teeth. それで自然法は無力な思想だった。統治二論の第二論でジョン・ロック（Ｊｏｈｎ　Ｌｏｃｋｅ）が個人的な思想として自然法を再び作り上げた先駆者の一人だった。やっと歯を持つ思想になった。
(Even so, in the previous chapter it was observed that Cumberland’s and Pufendorf’s ideas were revolting to the establishment of their times. Pufendorf’s philosophy book, De iure naturae et gentium, was published 17 years before Locke’s Treatises. “Cumberland,” whoever that is (I have not yet found him), was probably also before Locke.) （だけど前の章でカンバーランド（Ｃｕｍｂｅｒｌａｎｄ）とプーフェンドルフ（Ｐｕｆｅｎｄｏｒｆ）の思想がその時の支配階級を驚かしたと読んだ。プーフェンドルフの哲学の本、Ｄｅ　ｉｕｒｅ　ｎａｔｕｒａｅ　ｅｔ　ｇｅｎｔｉｕｍ、が統治二論の十七年先に出版された。多分カンバーランドもロックより先だったが、あのカンバーランドという人の正体は今の拙者に分からない。）
After the reformulation, natural law endorsed natural rights, those rights that men hold by virtue of their nature as men. Major liberal movements founded on these principles advanced the cause of liberty in the ensuing years. 新しい作り上がりで自然法が天賦人権、人の性質のせいで持つ権利、を支持する。この原則で後年で自由を求める運動が始まった。
No comments

Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 3: Natural Law versus Positive Law

  By
This is a short chapter with a lot of references. The takeaway is that natural law is the only way we can judge positive law. Positive law is that law that is posited by certain parties to be law. Typically, these are the laws of nations; the nation’s rulers position some principle as a law, therefore it is a law. 自由の倫理の第三章は複数の参考を持った短い章だ。知られるのは自然法だけが実定法を断じれる。実定法はある人が立てる法則だ。国の法則は一例だ。国の支配階級が原則を法則として立つから法則である。
In short, somebody says something is a law, and it’s a law because they say so. For being no justification at all, it’s surprisingly popular. Yet, it could happen that, by willful design of right-thinking statesmen, by pragmatic appeasement for a skeptical citizenry, or by sheer happenstance, some positive laws could be good (or at least less bad than other laws). で、あるものが［法則だ］と言って、あのものが言ったとおり法則になる。正当性がないが、よく使われる。だけども、良い政治家の務めでか、懐疑的な国民をなだめる為にか、又は偶然にかそれぞれな実定法の一部が良い法則（少なくとも別の法則より悪くない）であるかもしれない。
How do you tell if any given positive law is a good law or not? You need an external set of principles for that (internal review mechanisms are, by their nature, not up to the task): natural law. Natural law gives us a framework for assessing positive laws. Natural law has the further benefit of being consistent, fixed and unchanging, applicable at all times and at all places, subject only to our imperfect apprehension of it. Positive laws are changed all the time; if those in power will it, anything that is lawful today may be unlawful tomorrow, and vice versa. 法則を見れば、どうやっていいか悪いか決められる？外の原則（内側の検討仕組みは性質で出来ない）に頼って：自然法。自然法が実定法を判断する位置を立つ。それに、一貫な、固定した、変わりのない、いつでもどこでも応用する原則である。実定法がいつも変わっている。支配階級が欲すれば、今日の合法のことが明日の違法になる、そして逆もある。
Only natural law can give us fixity, and only it can give us a vantage from which we can judge positive law. Without it, criticisms of positive law are no better than the justification for it. 自然法だけが確定性を贈れる。その視座だけから実定法を判断できる。それが無いと実定法への批正が実定法の正当化よりよくはない。
Rothbard’s many references highlight the importance of this position. Rothbard didn’t come up with it, after all. He quotes Lord Acton (himself speaking of still earlier pioneers of natural law), who observed that the rise of natural law left the politicians of the time aghast, for they had never dealt with external judgment of this sort. Their questions for assessing the rightness of their laws boiled down to, “Can I? And, can I get away with it?” In other words, it was a question of power and expediency. Enter the fray natural law, and it is a question of neither of these, but a question of justice and injustice. ロスバードの参考が重要さを強調する。ロスバードから始めたものではないから、数百年の歴史で鋭い意見が山ほどある。自分より先の自然法の誕生が過去の政治屋の愕然を述べたアクトン卿（Ｌｏｒｄ　Ａｃｔｏｎ）をも引用する。その政治屋がそんな外の判断と合わせたことは無かった。それまで、法則の正当化の問題は「できるか・ただで済むか」。つまり、力と都合の問題だった。自然法の参上で、それじゃなく「正か・不正か」の質問になる。
They were right to be aghast. I should like for modern politicians to feel the same. 愕然したのは当然だった。現在の政治屋もその愕然を感じれば良いと、拙者が思う。
No comments

Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 2: Natural Law as “Science”

  By
Ethics of Liberty’s second chapter describes natural law in more detail. One statement he makes is, “The natural law ethic decrees that for all living things, “goodness” is the fulfillment of what is best for that type of creature; “goodness” is therefore relative to the nature of the creature concerned.” This is well stated, and perhaps a good idea; but to use it makes the ethic necessarily dependent on man’s nature. I believe it need not be so. 自由の倫理の二章は自然法を人類の性質に由来して細かく説明する。ひとつの生命は”自然法は全生き物に”善”があの生き物に一番良いことを満たす；だから”善”はその生き物の性質に相対的だ。”よく言ったものだ、そして良い考えかも知らないが、そうすると論の全部が人類の性質に依存する。それは必要ないと、拙者が思う。
For one thing, the proposition of the “New Socialist Man,” the man who would inhabit the socialist utopias, is a “man” with a significantly different nature than the “man” that Rothbard analyzes. Setting aside the apparent impossibility of changing man’s nature, if the proponents of the New Socialist Man theory are taken seriously, a new ethic must be elaborated that is based on this nature. そうすれば、”新社会主義人”、社会主義の空想を住むといわれる人が、ロスバードの見た”人”とかなり違う”人”だ。人の性質を変える不可能性をさて置いて、この新会社主義人の提案を考えたら、それに由来して新しい倫理を作らないとならない。
For another, should mankind ever find intelligent life aside from themselves, unless the newcomers should happen to possess a nature identical to man’s, then they, too, will require an ethic. あと、もしも人類が別の知的生命を発見すれば、その生命が人類と同じ性質を持たないと、また別の倫理が必要になる。
By simply presuming that there exist a number of ethical agents, each ethically equal, we can elaborate an ethic that applies to men as we know them, to the New Socialist Man, and to relations between sentient creatures of considerable variation. 複数の匹敵するエージェントを仮定して、我々の人類の人にも、新社会主義人にも、そして様々な知的生命体にも応用する倫理を作られる。
Rothbard also has a quote from John Wild: “why are such principles felt to be binding on me?” Indeed this is a good question. Why adopt this ethic, as opposed to some other? それにロスバードがジョンワイルド（Ｊｏｈｎ　Ｗｉｌｄ）の”どうしてそんな原則が私に義務的である？”を引用する。たしかに良い質問だ。何で別の倫理じゃなく、こんな倫理を採用する？
Ethics guide one’s actions. When interacting with others, some ethic must guide one’s actions in relating to the others. Those actions can be inspected, and the ethic behind them deduced. Invariably, many men’s actions will indicate that they act as equals with other men, and some men’s actions will indicate that they act as unequals with other men. We will later examine some reasons for choosing one or the other of these, but for now, let us simply assert that men should interact as equals with each other. 倫理は人の活動を導く。別の人と絡むと、なんかの倫理がその活動を導く。その活動を視れば本ずいた倫理を推理できる。必ず、ある人は別人と匹敵する活動を見せる、そしてある人は別人と匹敵しない活動を見せる。あとで決める理由を見るが、今は匹敵者として活動しなければならないだけを断言しよう。
To answer the John Wild’s question, you operate under some principles anyway; we need only inspect your actions to know them. Then we can assess your principles as just ones or unjust ones, based on criteria of justice (which we will examine in later posts). ジョンワイルドの質問を答える。どうしても何かの原則を義務として使ってるから。見れば分かる。そうしてその原則を正しいか正しくないか判断できる、あとで調べる正義の基準で。
No comments

Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 1: Natural Law and Reason

  By
Let’s start this blog by gradually reviewing the literature I have to hand over several posts. It helps that I’m familiar with it. First, Rothbard’s Ethics of Liberty. I’ll skip straight to the book proper (Hans-Herman Hoppe’s introduction doesn’t have anything special that wasn’t already in Hoppe’s work, which I’ll come to later). このブログを始めようとして、今持っているエクリチュールを徐々に復習しよう。よく知っているからうまく説明できるし。その一はロスバードの自由の倫理。ハンスヘルマンホッペ（Ｈａｎｓ－Ｈｅｒｍａｎ　Ｈｏｐｐｅ）の前振りには特別な一役はあるが、ホッペの作物に進んだ時に見るからこっちの本文に飛ぶ。
Rothbard’s theory is a natural law formulation. So, his first task is to justify “natural law” itself. The creation of natural law can be described as man’s use of reason to discern the laws of nature. Surprisingly, there are two groups of people who oppose this process. They are, if I may casually label them, the theocrats and the scientistics. Theocrats assert that only divine revelation can illuminate people’s proper behavior, and the scientistics assert that “natural law” is theological in origin and therefore invalid as a scientific concept. ロスバードの論は自然法の打ち立てだ。で、初めての仕事は自然法自身を言い開くことだ。自然法を作成するのは人が理性を使って自然の法則を悟ることと言える。案外に反対派は二手ある。それは神政派と科学万能派だ。神政派は天啓でしか人の正しい行動が分かられないと言い、そして科学万能派は自然法が神学で本ずくから科学な概念として無効だと言う。
An odd agreement, as Rothbard points out. 奇妙な同意だ、ロスバードの認めたとおりに。
I have a great respect for religion, it having guided mankind for a good long time. But to attack the use of reason- which is obviously one of God’s gifts to us- for improving our understanding of ourselves and our world is tantamount to criticizing God for giving it to us in the first place. It is actually irreverent. What kind of theology is it that bids us to cast away God’s gifts? 長い歴史に人類を導いた神教に拙者が深く尊敬する。だけど神が我々に送った理性を使うことを攻めるなんて、神を批評するに近いものだろう。なんの神学が神の贈り物を捨てることを言う？
Then there’s the supposedly scientific criticism that natural law is theological. It’s true that Christians, such as the Thomists and the Scholastics, did much of the early formulations of natural law. But, even if we presumed that all religion is wrong as such, that doesn’t mean that anything that’s ever been proposed by any believer is wrong. Every argument deserves to be decided on its merits, and “brought forth by a man of faith” is neither a merit nor a demerit. Dismissing it on that ground is a logical fallacy, a species of ad hominem. または自称「科学」の批評、自然法の神学の本。自然法はたしかにキリスト教の人が（たとえばトミスムのものとクコラ学のもの）よく作った論だ。だけど全部の神教が外れたと推定しても信者の言った全てが外れと言えない。論は理か偽りかで見定めるものだ。”信者が言い出した”はそれに関係ない。その理由で否定するのは人身攻撃の類だ。
These arguments addressed, it is perfectly clear that we can- and, if we desire to be successful in our endeavors, should- use our reason to the utmost, to learn about our natures and the nature of our environment. Natural law is the branch of this project that deals with the interactions between men; which interactions are justified, and which are not. この反対の論を否定して、理性を限界まで使って我々とわが環境を分かれる。それに成功したいなら、そうしなければならない。自然法はその為の人の絡みを分かれることだ。なんの絡みが正しいか、なんの絡みが正しくないか。
No comments

Welcome to my blog.

  By
To make a long story short, I’m not fully satisfied with any of the formulations of ethics that I have read. Not being one to simply complain, my intention is to create a new one; one that’s complete and consistent. 長い話を略して、拙者の読んだ倫理の論では満足する論は見つかったことはない。不足を言うだけのはしたくないので、新しい倫理の論を作ってみたい。完全な、道理至極な論を。
The best ethic I’ve found so far is that of Murray Rothbard, in his Ethics of Liberty. Nevertheless, I want to lay ethics on a somewhat different basis (although most of the conclusions should remain the same), and I have a few other minor critiques. 今まで見つかった論に一番良いのはマリーロスバード（Ｍｕｒｒａｙ　Ｒｏｔｈｂａｒｄ）の論、自由の倫理（Ｅｔｈｉｃｓ　ｏｆ　Ｌｉｂｅｒｔｙ）に。にしても、断じることはほとんど変わらないが別の基本に立てたい。あと、少数の批正をしたい。
I also need to read more on this topic. It simply wouldn’t do to try to reinvent the wheel, if the “wheel” is already out there. Rothbard is known as extremely radical, and since I’m close to his position, I won’t likely find the perfect solution exists already. But it is my conscientious duty to try to find it. Also, I’d like to read a number of ethic systems, for the sake of critique, and even the most wrong people may happen to state something incredibly well, or even something correct! まだまだ読まなきゃならない。もしかして、もう拙者をも納得する論がどこかにあるかもしれない。ロスバードは極めて抜本的な人だという、あの人に近い拙者には完璧な論があるなんて思えないが、真面目に探さないとならない。また、批正をするためにいろんな論をしりたい。理は珍しい所に潜むこともあるし。
In the end, I may publish a book on ethics. That is my expectation at this point. 結局、倫理の本を書くかも知らない。今では、拙者はそうなると思う。
Incidentally, I want to write this blog (and the book) in Japanese as well as English, mostly as practice in Japanese. ついでに、このブログを、そして本を、同時に英語と日本語で書きたい。主に日本語の練習に。