| In this sub-chapter, Rothbard addresses the utilitarian philosophy of his teacher and friend, Ludwig von Mises. Mises had two approaches. In his first, he asserted that even a value-free economist can label a policy as “bad” if he can show its advocates that the consequences would be unfavorable in their own eyes. Rothbard points out that this must be unanimous – if even a single advocate continues to support the policy, the economist can say nothing, and is rendered moot. This occurs with some frequency, as the advocates are looking at short-term benefits and the economist points out long-term detriments (a common pattern of government policies); almost always someone amongst the supporters has time preference high enough to maintain his support. Often, many if not most of the supporters remain unswayed. Mises claims that people’s “rightly understood interests” (by which he means long-term interests) work in opposition to such policies, but Rothbard points out that the economist thereby overrides the time preferences that the people actually possess. | この章節でロスバードはルートヴィヒ・ヴォン・ミーゼスの功利主義を語る。ミーゼスには方角が二つあった。片方に、政策の擁護者に自分の意見でも政策の成績が不利と示せればその政策が悪い、と無色な経済学者でも言える。でも全会一致じゃないと言えない、とロスバードが述べる。擁護者の中の一人でも擁護し続ける者があれば、悪いと言うのは無色ではない。経済学が無力だ。短期しか見ぬ擁護者には経済学者の説明した長期の不利が無意味だという結果がよくある。悪い政策の擁護者には擁護を維持する高い時間選好を持つ者がよくあるから。頻繁に擁護者の大部分が姿勢を変わらない。人々の「正しく考えた（長期の）利」が政策と反対に立つとミーゼスが主張するが、そうして経済学者が人々の時間選好を無視するとロスバードが述べる。 |
| Mises’s other argument comes as a citizen rather than an economist, so he can make value judgments. However, Mises only advance one value judgment: Support the majority in preferring life to death, abundance to poverty, etc. Rothbard criticizes this for being dependent on popular opinion. If the public chooses to pursue the self-destructive ends of envy and instant gratification, then Mises’s own method requires that he support them. | ミーゼスの他方は経済学者ではなく市民として価値判断が許される。だが、価値判断の一つだけ主張する。「死より生、貧困より賦存量などの多数判断を支持せよ」と。これが世論に依存する、とロスバードは責める。多数が嫉妬とインスタント喜びみたいな自己破壊的な目的を選べばミーゼスの方法論が支持を要する。 |
| I must say that last point is truly the downfall of utilitarianism. If enough people embrace vice rather than virtue, the utilitarian must relent to them, and recommend gratifying it, be the outcome anywhere between impoverishment and genocide. | その最後の点は功利主義の真の欠点でござる、と拙者が言わなきゃならない。足りる人数が徳より不徳を抱くと、功利主義者が折れるべきでござる。不徳と満たすべき、結果が貧窮化にも大虐殺にでもなっても。 |
Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 26: Utilitarian Free-Market Economics, Part C
Bookmark the permalink.