Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 26: Utilitarian Free-Market Economics, Part A

  By
In this chapter, Rothbard criticizes utilitarian justifications of the free market, to show that only natural rights form a solid basis for a free society. この章節でロスバードが功利主義の自由市場の正当化を責める。そうして天賦人権だけが自由市場を正当化できると示すつもりだ。
Utilitarianism advocates pursuing the most happiness for the most people. Rothbard’s criticisms are: 功利主義が最大多数の最大幸福を追求することを主張する。ロスバードの非難は：
  1. They give no justification for following the majority of the people. Minorities must bend to the “happiness” of the majority, and in fact have no right to object to any deprivation.
  2. They hold, in theory, that each person’s happiness counts equally, but can give no justification.
  3. They take the people’s desires as a constant guide to dutifully fulfill, but again offer no reason. If we examined those desires, we might find them inadvisable or even loathsome. Yet, the duty to fulfill them stands.
  4. There is no way to add individual happinesses in to a “net social benefit.” It is literally impossible to ascertain if some change or other leaves society better or worse off.
  1. 最大多数を従う正当化がない。少数派には従う選択しかない以上どんな被害を受けても文句を言う権利もない。
  2. 人々の幸福が等しく足すと言うけど、個人的に功利に重みを付けない理由を言わない。
  3. 人々の欲を導きとして受け取るが、また理由を言わない。その欲を観れば愚行とか不届きに見えても従う義理が変わらない。
  4. 人々の幸福を足せないから社会功利を弾けない。考える変化が社会的な費用便益分析が不可能だ。
All I would add to this is emphasis that nothing is inviolable to utilitarianism. No property cannot be redistributed, no liberty cannot be infringed, and no life cannot be taken, if, in the theoretical calculation of society’s “happiness,” it results in a slightly higher value. 拙者の加わることは一つだけでござる。功利主義には不可侵権がない。理論的な計算式で少しでも高い価値が出れば再分配できない所有物も侵せない自由も奪われない命もない。

About Brian Wilton

I'm a libertarian. I prefer reading articles and books to listening to podcasts, although I hear that podcasts are more popular. Call it Picard's Syndrome.
Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply