1、如何使我們不為窮人的存在而內疚1.我想認真地思考人類最古老的一種活動，這項活動持續(xù)了多年，實際上已經超過了幾個世紀，那就是嘗試怎樣使我們不為窮人的存在而內疚。2.貧窮和富有從一開始就共生在一起，彼此很不愉快有時還充滿危險。普魯塔克說：“貧富失衡乃共和政體最致命的宿疾?！备挥泻拓毟F持續(xù)共存產生的問題，特別是如何證明在其他人還貧窮時我們富有是有道理的這一問題。成為有思想有學問的人幾百年來孜孜不倦地思考探索的問題。3.圣經提出了最初的解決之道：在現(xiàn)世遭受貧窮的人來世會得到更好的回報。他們的貧窮是暫時的災難：如果貧窮但卻能順從，他們將來就會成為世界的主人。在某種程度上這就是最理想的解決方法。這樣一來，

2、富人就可以一邊嫉妒窮人的美好前途一邊享受他們的財富。4. 很長時間之后，即在1776年國富論發(fā)表二三十年之后在英國工業(yè)革命開始之后貧窮不均的問題及其解決辦法開始具有了現(xiàn)代的形式。杰里米本瑟姆，這位與亞當斯密幾乎是同時代的人，提出了這樣一種準則，在某種程度上，美國人認為這一準則在英國幾乎50年來一直影響顯著，這就是實用主義學說?！巴ㄟ^實用的原則，”本瑟姆在1789年指出，“也就是在每次行動中，依照政黨各方利益受影響的好壞趨勢，來贊同剛或則否決該項行動的原則?！睂嵱茫瑢嶋H上一定是以自我為中心的。然而，社會中只有少數(shù)人擁有大量財富，卻有更多人沒有財富。只要遵循本瑟姆的“最大的利益給最多的人”，就能夠

3、解決社會問題。社會盡力滿足更多人的利益，然而對于那些利益沒有被滿足的人來說，這個結果是悲哀的。5. 在19世紀30年代，一種新的準則成為使我們不為窮人的存在感到內疚的有效辦法，迄今為止它的影響也絲毫沒有減弱。這是與股票家戴維里卡多和托馬斯羅伯特馬爾薩斯神父聯(lián)系在一起的。它的本質很為人們所熟悉：窮人的貧窮是他們自己的錯誤。貧窮是他們過度生育的結果。很遺憾，他們不能控制性欲，過度生育把地球具有的養(yǎng)活人口的能力推向極限。6. 這就是人口論。生育引起的貧窮意味著富人不應該為貧窮的產生和解決承擔責任。然而，馬爾薩斯本人并不是缺乏責任感的人：他極力主張婚姻的儀式應該包括對過度或不負責任的性生活的警告說老實

4、話，這是一種完全有效的控制生育的方法，卻沒被人們接受。在近代，羅納德里根曾經說過控制人口的最佳形式存在于市場。(熱戀中的夫婦應該上梅西百貨公司，而不是回到新房。）應該說，馬爾薩斯的建議至少沾點兒邊。7. 19世紀中葉，一種新的解決這一問題的方案產生了很大影響，在美國影響尤其強烈。這一學說與赫伯特斯賓塞的名字聯(lián)系在一起，就是社會學中的進化論。在經濟生活中如同在生物進化過程中一樣，主導的規(guī)律是適者生存?！斑m者生存”這個短語實際上并不出自查爾斯達爾文，而是出自斯賓塞，后者表達了對經濟生活的看法。窮人被淘汰是大自然種族進化的方式。只有弱者和不幸的人滅亡了，人類家庭的質量才會提高。8. 最著名的美國達爾

5、文社會進化論的發(fā)言人之一約翰d洛克菲勒第一個洛克菲勒在一次著名的演講中說：“美國這朵玫瑰花以其華貴與芳香讓觀眾傾倒，贊不絕口。而她之所以能被培植出來，就是因為在早期其周圍的花蕾被掐掉了。在經濟生活中情況亦是如此。這是自然規(guī)律和上帝意志在起作用。9. 然而在本世紀中，人們認為社會學中的達爾文進化論遭到了普遍的抵制，得到的是帶有責難腔調的評論。更多解決貧窮的方法都與卡爾文庫利奇和赫伯特胡佛有關。他們認為公眾對窮人的支持會干預經濟系統(tǒng)的運行效能，這種支持和那些能拯救更多人的經濟計劃相矛盾。直到今天，人們仍然持有一種觀念，幫助窮人會對經濟造成巨大損失，借此理由，我們才能不為窮人的存在而內疚。10. 羅

6、斯福的改革使政府被想象為對共和政體里不幸的人負責任的形象。羅斯福及隨后的幾任總統(tǒng)都采取了有效措施，比如為老人提供社會保障，為失業(yè)者提供失業(yè)保險，給無法就業(yè)者和殘疾人直接救濟，并給病人提供醫(yī)療照顧和醫(yī)療補助。這種很長一段時間里確實極大地改變了舊的觀念，人們開始認為我們的確不只是嘗試，實際上我們的確一直在做許多幫助窮人的事。11. 然而，最近幾年，我們又在試圖尋找不為窮人的存在而內疚的辦法，雖然這種需要日益明顯，但結果卻是無功而返，解決之道尚屬未知。于是現(xiàn)在我們重新嘗試尋找新的有效方法，這種探索又一次成為哲學家、文學家、演說家們收入不菲的一個重要行業(yè)。12. 在以上四五種現(xiàn)行的解決方法中，從不可避

7、免的事實中得出的最首要的結論就是政府必須采取各種措施幫助窮人。接著指出除了武器的設計和采購以及五角大樓的整體管理之外，政府就是無能的。由于政府無能又缺乏有效措施，就無法指望它來援助窮人，它只會無事生非或使事情變得更糟。13. 在我們這個時代，對政府無能的指責是與對官僚的籠統(tǒng)譴責聯(lián)系在一起的與國防有關的人士又不在此列。唯一的區(qū)別對待形式還是允許的也是如今在美國人手官方鼓勵的區(qū)別對待那些為聯(lián)邦政府工作的人特別是致力于社會福利事業(yè)的人。我們有龐大的企業(yè)官僚機構，充斥著企業(yè)官僚，但他們是好的；只有公眾官僚和政府官員不好。實際上，美國有非常的公職力量一支由富有才干和獻身精神的人組成的隊伍，他們非常誠實，

8、以至像出高價購買活動扳手、手電筒、咖啡壺以及馬桶坐圈以獲取回扣的情況極為罕見。（奇怪的是，這些事情如果發(fā)生，全都發(fā)生在五角大樓。）我們幾乎杜絕了老人的貧窮狀況，使醫(yī)療照顧更為民主，保證少數(shù)人中的政治權利，并極大地增加受教育的機會。這些對那些沒有生活能力的人所做的一切看來應該是相當大的成就。我們必須承認眼下對政府和政府管理部門的責難其實也算是試圖對窮人責任的一部分。14. 有幾個世紀傳統(tǒng)的第二個方案也存在爭議，它認為任何一種對窮人的公眾援助都會傷害窮人本身。它摧毀斗志，誘惑人們不再工作，破壞婚姻，因為一旦婦女離開自己的丈夫也能為自己和孩子尋得保障。15. 這里沒有這種傷害的證據(jù)，因此也無法把這種

9、傷害和缺乏社會援助所受的傷害進行比較。不過我們相信實事求是，這種做法確實對給予窮人的援助造成嚴重的影響。這種說法也許是我們編造的神話中最有影響力的一篇。16. 緊接著的第三種，喚醒我們對窮人的責任感的方案涉及社會援助措施對工作動機的不利影響，他們用勤奮的人們的收入給那些懶惰和無能的人，這會打消勤勞者的工作積極性，也會鼓勵懶散的人繼續(xù)懶惰。目前的示威運動就是針對這種單方援助的經濟。這種經濟認為美國的富人不再堅持工作是因為他們的收入太少。所以，我們費力地通過把窮人的錢給富人的辦法來刺激經濟。難道我們真的認為大多數(shù)窮人寧愿要福利而不愿要一個好的工作？或者認為那些商人公司執(zhí)行官們，那些時代的重要角色真

10、的因為工資不當而游手好閑，虛度光陰？這簡直是對美國商人、一個顯而易見的勤勞工作者的難以置信的可恥的指控。信念可以是真理的仆人但更多的情況下，只是一時之需。17. 第四種使我們不為窮人的存在而內疚的方案是指明如果政府替窮人承擔責任，可能會對自由產生不利的影響。自由包括人們自己選擇花錢的最大量的權利以及允許政府拿走并花掉自己錢最少量的權利。（強調一下，花在國防上的錢除外。）正如彌爾頓佛里德曼教授那句久為流傳的名言，人們應該“自由選擇”。18. 這一方案中有一點是最明顯的：窮人的自由和收入之間的關系沒有人關注。（佛里德曼教授這里提出了反駁，他認為可以通過一些消極的稅收來保證每個人的最低收入。）我們完

11、全可以同意，沒有哪一種形式比身無分文更厲害，也沒用哪種對思想和行動的束縛比一無所有更全面徹底。盡管我們聽到很多關于稅收造成的收入減少給富人的自由權利帶來種種限制，卻沒聽說窮人多交出錢來能增加一些自由的權利。實際上富人稅收是去的自由與窮人交出收入所應該得到卻沒有得到的自由相比實在是件微不足道的小事。我們珍惜自由是對的，正因為珍惜自由，我們才不能以此為借口，不給最需要自由的人自由。19. 最終，當一切辦法都無濟于事的時候，我們就干脆裝聾作啞。對于不愉快的事情視而不見或不去想是我們普遍存在的心理傾向。正因為如此，我們才能對死亡視而不見；我們也才能不去考慮武器的種類及其將帶來可能導致全部滅亡的混亂。由

12、于同樣的心理傾向我們也拒絕去考慮窮人的存在。不管他們生活在埃塞俄比亞，還是在紐約市的南部朗克斯區(qū)，甚至是洛杉磯這樣的天堂，我們都決心不去為這些人操心。我們總是被建議去想愉快的事情。20. 這是幾種躲避關心窮人的方案。除了最后一種，所有這些卓越的傳統(tǒng)都是用來結束我們探索如何不對我們的窮人同胞內疚的歷程。都來自本瑟姆、馬爾薩斯、斯賓塞、羅納德里根及他們的后繼者們的發(fā)明。所以心理學家聚集在華盛頓宣告：喬治吉爾德，近代最有特權的人物，他極力贊許窮人應該承受一定的痛苦，只有如此他們才能受到激勵而努力改變現(xiàn)狀；他的極力擁護者查爾斯默里也聲稱：“廢除一切工人階級和老人的政府福利和收入保障措施，包括對有未成年

13、子女家庭的補助、醫(yī)療照顧、食品券、失業(yè)保險、工人失業(yè)保險金、住房補貼及傷殘保險和所有其他的一切。這是一堆解不開的疙瘩，只能快刀斬亂麻，統(tǒng)統(tǒng)取消?！卑凑站葷南群笤瓌t，生存者應該是經過挑選的有價值的人；其他人的滅亡是我們必須付出的代價。默里是斯賓塞在我們這一時代的代言人，如上所說，他在華盛頓高層中享有無比的威望。21. 同情心，加上與之相關的社會努力是我們這個時代最麻煩、最令人不快的行為和行動方針。但是它仍然是與我們整個文明生活相符的唯一方針。而且最終，這無疑是最保守的路線。這并不是自相矛盾。對文明的不滿和所帶來的結果并不來自那些滿足的人這點很明顯。為了能達到我們盡可能廣泛地滿足的程度，我們將保

14、持并擴大社會和政治的平靜，這是保守者最渴望的。how to get the poor off our consciencejohn kenneth galbraith1. i would like to reflect on one of the oldest of human exercises, the process by which over the years, and indeed over the centuries, we have undertaken to get the poor off our conscience.2. rich and poor have lived

15、 together, always uncomfortably and sometimes perilously, since the beginning of time. plutarch was led to say: “an imbalance between the rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of republics.” and the problems that arise from the continuing co-existence of affluence and povertyand particu

16、larly the process by which good fortune is justified in the presence of the ill fortune of others have been an intellectual preoccupation for centuries. they continue to be so in our own time.3. one begins with the solution proposed in the bible: the poor suffer in this world but are wonderfully rew

17、arded in the next. the poverty is a temporary misfortune; if they are poor and also meek they eventually will inherit the earth. this is, in some ways, an admirable solution. it allows the rich to enjoy their wealth while envying the poor their future fortune. harry crewss “pages from the life of a

18、georgia innocent” discusses the romanticizing of poverty.4. much, much later, in the twenty or thirty years following the publication in 1776 of the wealth of nationsthe late dawn of the industrial revolution in britainthe problem and its solution began to take on their modern form. jeremy bentham,

19、a near contemporary of adam smith, came up with the formula that for perhaps fifty years was extraordinarily influential in british and, to some degree, american thought. this was utilitarianism. “by the principle of utility,” bentham said in 1789, “is meant the principal which approves or disapprov

20、es of every action whatsoever according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question.” virtue is, indeed must be, self-centered. while there were people with great good fortune and many more with great ill fortune, the socia

21、l problem was solved as long as, again in benthams words, there was “the greatest good for the greatest number.” society did its best for the largest possible number of people; one accepted that the result might be sadly unpleasant for the many whose happiness was not served.5. in the 1830s a new fo

22、rmula, influential in no slight degree to this day, became available for getting the poor off the public conscience. this is associated with the names of david ricardo, a stockbroker, and thomas robert malthus, a divine. the essentials are familiar: the poverty of the poor was the fault of the poor.

23、 and it was so because it was a product of their excessive fecundity: their grievously uncontrolled lust caused them to breed up to the full limits of the available subsistence.6. this was malthusianism. poverty being caused in the bed meant that the rich were not responsible for either its creation

24、 or its amelioration. however, malthus was himself not without a certain feeling of responsibility: he urged that the marriage ceremony contain a warning against undue and irresponsible sexual intercoursea warning, it is fair to say, that has not been accepted as a fully effective method of birth co

25、ntrol. in more recent times, ronald reagan has said that the best form of population control emerges from the market. (couples in love should repair to r. h. macys, not their bedrooms.) malthus, it must be said, was at least as relevant.7. by the middle of the nineteenth century, a new form of denia

26、l achieved great influence, especially in the united states. the new doctrine, associated with the name of herbert spencer, was social darwinism. in economic life, as in biological development, the overriding rule was survival of the fittest. that phrase”survival of the fittest”came, in fact, not fr

27、om charles darwin but from spencer, and expressed his view of economic life. the elimination of the poor is natures way of improving the race. the weak and unfortunate being extruded, the quality of the human family is thus strengthened.8. one of the most notable american spokespersons of social dar

28、winism was john d. rockefellerthe first rockefellerwho said in a famous speech: “the american beauty rose can be produced in the splendor and fragrance which bring cheer to its beholder only by sacrificing the early buds which grow up around it. and so it is in economic life. it is merely the workin

29、g out of a law of nature and a law of god.” jacob riiss how the other half lives was written during the time of social darwinism and played a major role in this ideologys demise.9. in the course of the present century, however, social darwinism came to be considered a bit too cruel. it declined in p

30、opularity, and references to it acquired a condemnatory tone. we passed on to the more amorphous denial of poverty associated with calvin coolidge and herbert hoover. they held that public assistance to the poor interfered with the effective operation of the economic systemthat such assistance was i

31、nconsistent with the economic design that had come to serve most people very well. the notion that there is something economically damaging about helping the poor remains with us to this day as one of the ways by which we get them off our conscience. it doesnt follow, however, that government aid to

32、 the affluent is morally damaging; see “the next new deal” and “reining in the rich”.10. with the roosevelt revolution (as previously with that of lloyd george in britain), a specific responsibility was assumed by the government for the least fortunate people in the republic. roosevelt and the presi

33、dents who followed him accepted a substantial measure of responsibility for the old through social security, for the unemployed through unemployment insurance, for the unemployable and the handicapped through direct relief, and for the sick through medicare and medicaid. this was a truly great chang

34、e, and for a time, the age-old tendency to avoid thinking about the poor gave way to the feeling that we didnt need to trythat we were, indeed, doing something about them.11. in recent years, however, it has become clear that the search for a way of getting the poor off our conscience was not at an

35、end; it was only suspended. and so we are now again engaged in this search in a highly energetic way. it has again become a major philosophical, literary, and rhetorical preoccupation, and an economically not unrewarding enterprise.12. of the four, maybe five, current designs we have to get the poor

36、 off our conscience, the first proceeds from the inescapable fact that most of the things that must be done on behalf of the poor must be done in one way or another by the government. it is then argued that the government is inherently incompetent, except as regards weapons design and procurement an

37、d the overall management of the pentagon. being incompetent and ineffective, it must not be asked to succor the poor; it will only louse things up or make things worse.13. the allegation of government incompetence is associated in our time with the general condemnation of the bureaucratagain excludi

38、ng those associated with national defense. the only form of discrimination that is still permissiblethat is, still officially encouraged in the united states todayis discrimination against people who work for the federal government, especially on social welfare activities. we have great corporate bu

39、reaucracies replete with corporate bureaucrats, but they are good; only public bureaucracy and government servants are bad. in fact we have in the united states an extraordinarily good public serviceone made up of talented and dedicated people who are overwhelmingly honest and only rarely given to o

40、verpaying for monkey wrenches, flashlights, coffee makers, and toilet seats. (when these aberrations have occurred they have, oddly enough, all been in the pentagon.) we have nearly abolished poverty among the old, greatly democratized health care, assured minorities of their civil rights, and vastl

41、y enhanced educational opportunity. all this would seem a considerable achievement for incompetent and otherwise ineffective people. we must recognize that the present condemnation of government and government administration is really part of the continuing design for avoiding responsibility for the

42、 poor.14. the second design in this great centuries-old tradition is to argue that any form of public help to the poor only hurts the poor. it destroys morale. it seduces people away from gainful employment. it breaks up marriages, since women can seek welfare for themselves and their children once

43、they are without husbands.15. there is no proof of this-none, certainly, that compares that damage with the damage that would be inflicted by the loss of public assistance. see robert greensteins congressional testimony. still, the case is madeand believedthat there is something gravely damaging abo

44、ut aid to the unfortunate. this is perhaps our most highly influential piece of fiction.16. the third, and closely related, design for relieving ourselves of responsibility for the poor is the argument that public-assistance measures have an adverse effect on incentive. they transfer income from the

45、 diligent to the idle and feckless, thus reducing the effort of the diligent and encouraging the idleness of the idle. the modern manifestation of this is supply-side economics. supply-side economics holds that the rich in the united states have not been working because they have too little income.

46、so, by taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich, we increase effort and stimulate the economy. can we really believe that any considerable number of the poor prefer welfare to a good job? or that business peoplecorporate executives, the key figures in our timeare idling away their hours

47、because of the insufficiency of their pay? this is a scandalous charge against the american businessperson, notably a hard worker. belief can be the servant of truthbut even more of convenience.17. the fourth design for getting the poor off our conscience is to point to the presumed adverse effect o

48、n freedom of taking responsibility for them. freedom consists of the right to spend a maximum of ones money by ones own choice, and to see a minimum taken and spent by the government. (again, expenditure on national defense is excepted.) in the enduring words of professor milton friedman, people mus

49、t be “free to choose.”18. this is possibly the most transparent of all of the designs; no mention is ordinarily made of the relation of income to the freedom of the poor. (professor friedman is here an exception; through the negative income tax, he would assure everyone a basic income.) there is, we

50、 can surely agree, no form of oppression that is quite so great, no construction on thought and effort quite so comprehensive, as that which comes from having no money at all. though we hear much about the limitation on the freedom of the affluent when their income is reduced through taxes, we hear

51、nothing of the extraordinary enhancement of the freedom of the poor from having some money of their own to spend. yet the loss of freedom from taxation to the rich is a small thing as compared with the gain in freedom from providing some income to the impoverished. freedom we rightly cherish. cheris

52、hing it, we should not use it as a cover for denying freedom to those in need.19. finally, when all else fails, we resort to simple psychological denial. this is a psychic tendency that in various manifestations is common to us all. it causes us to avoid thinking about death. it causes a great many

53、people to avoid thought of the arms race and the consequent rush toward a highly probable extinction. by the same process of psychological denial, we decline to think of the poor. whether they be in ethiopia, the south bronx, or even in such an elysium as los angeles, we resolve to keep them off our minds. think, we