| Having described both individualist ethics and socialist ethics, with the men involved being considered equals in each case, let’s consider how to choose between them. The decision will necessarily come down to the virtues of the two ethics, and the consequences of the two ethics. So let’s examine those. | 個人主義と社会主義の両方、匹敵する人の倫理を書き表したことからどう選ぶかを考えよう。結局、その選択が倫理の徳と結果のことになる。 |
| The defining trait that separates these ethics is the locus of autonomy. One can choose to implement a centralized or a decentralized authority structure. | この倫理の区別する特徴が自主権の位置でござる。一方は中央集権で、他方は地方分権でござる。 |
| Under individualism, every individual possesses autonomy. So, under individualism, the core virtue is respect for the intrinsic value of every man’s autonomy. Important religious traditions, especially those of Western Civilization, go so far as to say that every man’s worth is sacred. | 個人主義で各人が個人的に自主権を持つ。だから個人主義の心の徳が「各人の自主権への尊敬」でござる。大事な信教の、特に西教の伝統が各人の価値に神聖視する。 |
| Under socialism, only the social group itself possesses autonomy. So, the core virtue is respect for the interests of society-at-large. No individual gets to selfishly hold everybody else back, as it were, so society can progress optimally, without hindrance. | 社会主義で社会の集団だけが自主権を持つ。だから社会主義の心の徳が「社会全会の権益への尊敬」でござる。一人でも私欲の個人が全会を妨げず、社会が支障なく至適的に信仰できる。 |
| The socialist might assert that the individualist ethic allows for wealthy and powerful men to subvert social goals for their own interests. If you ask him what these “social goals” are, however, all he can do is offer is his opinion. It might be his opinion of what they would be, or perhaps his opinion of how society might form those goals, or, if he is particularly honest, his opinion that, whatever the goals would turn out to be, they would be good. | 個人主義の倫理では富強な人が自分の権益の為に社会目的を覆せる、と社会主義者が主張するかも。その「社会目的」は何なのかと聞くと、自分の意見しか出せない。何になるはずの意見か、社会が目的を体系着ける方法の意見か、それとも（正直な人ならば）どんな目的になるとしても善良なことになる意見か。 |
| The individualist counter-asserts that the socialist ethic allows for the “society” to trample upon the people that comprise it. This accusation is entirely accurate. Society has all authority, and the people therein have none. If Society even decides to purge a subset of its population, it need not consider their interests any more than a man needs to consult with his appendix when he is considering an appendectomy. Society makes the decisions for its own purposes, not to make its people happy. | 個人主義者も、社会主義の倫理では「社会」が自身を構成する人たちを蹂躙されると主張する。その非難が完全に正確でござる。社会が全ての権力を持って、社会の民には何の権力も持たない。社会が一部の民を粛清すると決めても、盲腸炎手術を考える人が盲腸と相談する必要がないように、その一部の民に心配する必要がない。社会が民の喜びの為じゃなく、社会自身の為に選択する。 |
| That’s a discussion of the relative virtues of individualism and socialism. Now to consider their consequences. Individualism can point to its results; the historical record is clear that it produces enormous wealth and prosperity- a seemingly endless improvement in quality of life for those who organize themselves by its precepts. Socialism, however, has to posit theoretical benefits, and furthermore, theoretical benefits that are better than individualism’s manifest accomplishments. | 個人主義と社会主義の徳はそうと、両方の結果を考えよう。個人主義の結果は良いでござる。歴史の証が明らかにすごい富と繁栄をもたらす証拠になる。個人主義の教訓を従う人たちが見える限り底知れない生活進化を起きる。対して、社会主義には理論的な利益、しかも個人主義の結果を超越する理論的な利益、を立つ必要がある。 |
| Perhaps they could say that Society, in pursuit of its own health, will keep its constituent people healthy. Perhaps they could say that Society, having a perspective entirely different from the individuals’, would see threats to itself (and, by extension, to its people) that they would not, and could take appropriate action to preserve them. | 社会が自分の健康の為に民の健康を見守るとか、個人の視点と違う社会の視点から自分と民への危険が見えて効率な行動が取れるとか。 |
| This relies on a naive faith in Society, however. That describes a healthy Society. But, if a healthy and conscientious Society is possible, an unhealthy and dysfunctional Society is possible as well. Erect a global Socialism blindly, and which will you get? | だが、それが世間知れずな社会への信仰に頼る。その社会が健康的でござるが、健康良く良心的な社会が可能ならば、健康悪く機能不全な社会も可能でござる。闇雲に「社会」を建てば、どっちになる？ |
| Prudence might suggest that loading the world’s population into an experimental vehicle, with all their lives and belongings at risk, would be a very bad idea until such a vehicle had proven reliably safe and effective at smaller scales. Yet, as far as potential consequences go, this is analogous to any demand for the socialist ethic at this time. A healthy Socialism that doesn’t break down in under a century, doesn’t have genocidal oppression as a prominent feature, and makes its people happy would be a good proof of concept. | 世界の人たち全員の命と所有物を賭けて実験的な乗り物に乗せる前に、小規模でそのような乗り物の安全を証拠するべき。これが思慮でござる。だが、結果について今社会主義を求めるのは類推的でござる。百年以内に崩壊しない、大虐殺な迫害に頼らない、自分の民を喜ばす健康的な社会が出来れば実証実験になる。 |
| Economic theory and economic history are clear in their conclusion regarding the consequences of individualism and economic socialism (that is, government control of all capital goods). Individualism can produce wealth for its people. Socialism, by contrast, can only consume wealth. The socialist theory that society-wide coordination of the economy can eliminate redundant or conflicting economic activities and thereby increase production is profoundly wrong. Ludwig von Mises in particular proved that a socialist economic system cannot make rational decisions. What the socialist sees as redundancy and conflict are vitally important for generating economic signals, which the people of the society need in order to know what they should do. Without them, the individuals are lost, and consequently society as a whole is lost as well. | 経済学の理論と経済歴史が個人主義と社会主義の経済的な結果に同意する。個人主義が人に富をもたらせる。違って、社会主義が富を費やせるしか出来ない。社会主義の全社会で経済を強調すると冗長と衝突を除去するとの理論が重要に間違っている。前世紀の経済学者、特にルートヴィヒ・フォン・ミーゼス、は社会主義が合理的な決断に至れないことを証明した。社会主義者がと冗長と衝突と見えるものが経済的な兆候を作成するために必須なものでござる。その兆候こそが社会の人々には絶対必要でござる。その兆候がないと、各々の個人が道に迷って、社会全体も道に迷う。 |
Individualist Ethics versus Socialist Ethics
Bookmark the permalink.