最好的美國是漢密爾頓式的教育阿特拉斯大學
未找到專案。
最好的美國是漢密爾頓式的

最好的美國是漢密爾頓式的

|
8月23, 2022

[Hamilton] is a great man, but, in my judgment, not a great American. —U.S. President-elect Woodrow Wilson, Democrat (1912)1

When America ceases to remember [Hamilton’s] greatness, America will be no longer great. —U.S. President Calvin Coolidge, Republican (1922)2

America at her best loves liberty and respects rights, prizes individualism, eschews racism, disdains tyranny, extolls constitutionalism, and respects the rule of law. Her “can-do” spirit values science, invention, business, entrepreneurialism, vibrant cities, and spreading prosperity.

美國最熱愛自由,尊重權利,珍視個人主義,避免種族主義,蔑視暴政,頌揚憲政,尊重法治。她的“可以做”精神重視科學、發明、商業、企業家精神、充滿活力的城市和傳播繁榮。在她最好的情況下,美國歡迎尋求接受美國方式的移民,以及與創造我們想要的產品的外國人進行貿易。如果有必要,她願意發動戰爭來保護公民的權利——但不是自我犧牲,也不是為了征服。

America hasn’t always been at her best, of course. Beyond her glorious founding (1776­–1789), America’s best was exhibited most vividly in the half century between the Civil War and World War I, an era Mark Twain mocked as the “Gilded Age.” In truth, it was a golden era: Slavery had been abolished, money was sound, taxes were low, regulations minimal, immigration voluminous, invention ubiquitous, opportunity enormous, and prosperity profuse. The capitalistic North both outpaced and displaced the feudalistic South.

America today flirts with the worst version of herself.3 Her intellectuals and politicians routinely flout her Constitution. Gone is her firm adherence to separation of powers or checks and balances. The regulatory state proliferates. Taxes oppress while the national debt grows. Money is fiat, finance is volatile, production is stagnant. Populists and “progressives” denounce the rich and condemn economic inequality. Government-run schools produce ignorant voters with anticapitalist biases. Freedom of speech is increasingly assaulted. Racism, riots, and hostility toward policemen abound. Nativists and nationalists scapegoat immigrants and demand walled borders. Self-defeating rules of military engagement preclude the swift defeat of dangerous, barbaric enemies abroad.

Those wishing to see America at her best again can be inspired and informed by the writings and achievements of her founding fathers. And, fortunately, interest in the works of the founders appears to have grown in recent years. Many Americans today, despite their generally poor education, glimpse America’s distant greatness, wonder how the founders created it, and hope to regain it.

Most Americans have a favorite founder. A recent poll indicates that

40% of Americans rate George Washington, the general who defeated the British in the American Revolution and the nation’s first president, as the greatest Founding Father. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, is second [23%], followed by Benjamin Franklin [14%], with later presidents John Adams [6%] and James Madison [5%] further down the list.4

There’s no doubt among scholars (and rightly so) that Washington was “the indispensable man” of the founding era.5 But the poll omits one founder who was crucial to the birth of the United States of America in myriad ways: Alexander Hamilton.6

Despite a relatively short life (1757–1804),7 Hamilton was the only founder besides Washington who played a role in all five of the key stages comprising the creation of the United States of America, and a more crucial role in each successive stage: establishing political independence from Britain,8 achieving victory in the Revolutionary War, drafting and ratification of the U.S. Constitution, creating the administrative architecture for the first federal government, and drafting of the Jay Treaty with Britain as well as the Neutrality Proclamation, which secured the “completion of the founding.”9

The colonial Americans’ declaration of independence from Britain didn’t guarantee a subsequent victory at war, nor did America’s war victory guarantee a subsequent federal constitution. Indeed, not even the Constitution guaranteed that initial federal officeholders would govern properly or cede power peacefully. There was much more to the founding than a couple of documents and a war. How did the documents come to be? How were they defended intellectually? How was the war won? Who was responsible for the countless pivotal aspects of the founding that amounted to the creation and sustenance of the land of liberty?

Besides Washington, no one did more than Hamilton to create the USA, and no one worked as closely and as long (two decades) with Washington to design and enact the details that made the difference. The enduring, mutually supportive alliance between Washington and Hamilton (ably assisted by other Federalists),10 proved indispensable to creating a free and sustainable USA.11

What historians call the “critical period” in American history—the dissension-filled years between the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown (1781) and Washington’s inauguration (1789)—was marked by national insolvency, hyperinflation, interstate protectionism, near mutiny by unpaid officers, debtor rebellions, laws violating creditors’ rights, lawlessness, and threats by foreign powers. Those were years of the disunited states.12

誠實的錢需要重新發現美國的開國元勳

The Articles of Confederation—proposed by the Continental Congress in 1777 but not ratified until 1781—provided only a national, unicameral legislature with no executive or judicial branch. The legislators could do nothing absent unanimous approval from states, which was rare. The Continental Congress (perhaps most notable for issuing worthless paper currency) was substantially impotent, and its inertia prolonged the war and nearly caused its loss. Washington and his top aide, Hamilton, witnessed firsthand the injustice and suffering such ill governance can cause (as did soldiers at Valley Forge). America’s degeneration continued in the critical period, yet Jefferson and the anti-Federalists opposed any plan for a new constitution or any workable national government.13 Washington, Hamilton, and the Federalists, in contrast, fought tirelessly to put the “U” in USA.14 Hamilton also left this legacy: a model, through his voluminous papers and well-known public acts, of rational statesmanship.

The reasons Hamilton is not properly recognized for his many vital works and accomplishments are essentially threefold. First, his political opponents during the founding era (many of whom outlived him and Washington by many decades) spread malicious myths about him and his aims.15 Second, historians and theorists who favor as a political ideal unrestrained democracy embodying a supposed “will of the people” (even if “the people” will to violate rights) have opposed Hamilton’s ideals, claiming that a rights-respecting, constitutionally limited republic “privileges” elites who are most successful at life.16 Third, statists have strained to find illiberal elements in the founders to support the notion that they were not really for free markets, and they have spread myths to the effect that Hamilton advocated central banking, mercantilism, protectionism, and was a proto-Keynesian fan of deficit finance or a proto-Soviet fan of “industrial policy” (i.e., economic interventionism).17

In truth, Hamilton more strongly opposed statist premises and policies than any other founder.18 He endorsed a constitutionally limited, rights-respecting government that was energetic in carrying out its proper functions.

In truth, Hamilton more strongly opposed statist premises and policies than any other founder.18 He endorsed a constitutionally limited, rights-respecting government that was energetic in carrying out its proper functions. The question for Hamilton wasn’t whether government was “too big” or “too small” but whether it did the right things (uphold law and order, protect rights, practice fiscal integrity, provide for the national defense) or the wrong things (enable slavery, redistribute wealth, issue paper money, impose discriminatory tariffs, or engage in selfless wars). In Hamilton’s view, government must do the right things in big ways and mustn’t do the wrong things even in small ways.

Grasping Hamilton’s importance requires not only an account of his role in the founding of the USA (briefly sketched above), but also a fair analysis of his core views, including their distinctiveness relative to those of his critics’ views. Toward that end, we’ll consider his ideas in regard to constitutionalism, democracy and religion, political economy, public finance, and foreign policy.19

Constitutionalism, the Rule of Law, and Rights

Hamilton believed firmly in constraining and directing legitimate government power by a succinct, broadly worded “supreme” law of the land: a constitution. Above all, he held, a nation’s constitution must protect rights (to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness) by delegating to the state limited and enumerated powers. Like most classical liberals, Hamilton didn’t endorse a notion of “positive rights,” that is, the idea that some people must be made to provide for the health, education, and welfare of others. In logic and morality there can be no “right” to violate rights. In Hamilton’s view, rights are to be secured through three coequal branches of government, with a legislature only writing laws, an executive only enforcing laws, and a judiciary only judging laws relative to the constitution. To fully protect rights, government also must be administered fairly (e.g., equality under the law) and efficiently (e.g., fiscal responsibility). Hamilton’s constitutionalism, which other Federalists embraced as well, drew heavily on the theories of Locke, Blackstone, and Montesquieu.20

The philosophic grounding for a rights-respecting government, per Hamilton, is that “all men have one common original, they participate in one common nature, and consequently have one common right. No reason can be assigned why one man should exercise any power over his fellow creatures more than another, unless they voluntarily vest him with it.”21 And “the success of every government—its capacity to combine the exertion of public strength with the preservation of personal right and private security, qualities which define the perfection of government —must always depend on the energy of the executive department.”22

Hamilton held that government’s proper purpose is to preserve and protect rights. And in contrast to his opponents, he recognized that a potent and energetic executive is necessary to enforce law, to protect rights, and thus to establish and maintain liberty. The Articles of Confederation, he observed, lacked an executive, and this absence led to lawlessness.

Hamilton defended republican instead of democratic government23 because he knew the latter was prone to capriciousness, demagoguery, majority tyranny, and rights violations.24 He was critical also of nonconstitutional monarchy (the hereditary rule of men instead of the rule of law) because it too was prone to being capricious and violating rights. Realizing that democracy and monarchy alike could be despotic, Hamilton, like most Federalists, endorsed a constitutional principle known as “mixed” government, akin to that advocated by Aristotle, Polybius, and Montesquieu, which held that government is more likely to be both humane and durable if constituted as a balance of elements reflecting monarchy (executive branch), aristocracy (senate and the judicial branch), and democracy (legislative branch).25

Hamilton also conceptualized the crucial, rights-protecting doctrine of “judicial review,” whereby an appointed judiciary, as a distinct branch rendered independent of popular consensus, rules on whether legislative and executive acts obey or violate the constitution. Hamilton denied government’s right to violate rights—whether to satisfy the will of the majority or for any other reason. He and other Federalists often have been accused of wanting “centralized” government power, but the Articles already concentrated power in a single branch (a legislature). The new Constitution dispersed and decentralized that power across three branches and included checks and balances to ensure that overall power was limited.

Hamilton’s critics in his day not only opposed the new Constitution; some opposed the idea of an enduring constitution as such. Jefferson, in particular, held that no constitution should last more than a generation, and that older charters ought to be perpetually jettisoned and successive ones redrawn (if drawn at all) to permit a continuance of the “general will” and majority consent26—even if majorities might elect to institutionalize racism and slavery;27 to impede the spread of commerce, industry, and finance; to violate civil liberties;28 or to impose egalitarian redistributions of wealth.29 Indeed, the longest chapter in a recent history of egalitarian U.S. politicians is devoted to Jefferson, whereas Hamilton gets brief mention because, “contrary to the other American revolutionaries,” he “understood inequality neither as an artificial political imposition nor as something to be feared. He saw it as an ineluctable fact—‘the great and fundamental distinction in society,’ he declared in 1787, which ‘would exist as long as liberty existed’ and ‘would unavoidably result from that very liberty itself.’”30

Going further still in his concern for man’s rights, Hamilton also condemned the French Revolution,31 not because it ended a monarchy but because its regicidal zealots brought unrestrained democracy, anarchy, terror, and despotism to the people of France. Jefferson, in contrast, applauded the French Revolution and claimed that it echoed America’s revolt.32

Rights were also the concern of Hamilton and the Federalists (Washington excepted) when they adamantly opposed both racism and slavery. Among other humane acts, in 1785 Hamilton was instrumental in founding the New York Manumission Society, which caused the state to begin abolishing slavery in 1799.33 On these and other crucial matters, Hamilton and the Federalists were far more enlightened and principled than their more popular opponents.34

The U.S. Constitution, federal government, and unification of previously dissenting states—each crucial to securing rights—wouldn’t have occurred without Washington and Hamilton, and the nation wouldn’t have survived as free and as united as it did without their political progeny, Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party (founded in 1854).

In the 1780s, Hamilton called repeatedly for a convention, a constitution, and unity among the states; and Washington agreed to Hamilton’s admonitions that he (Washington) head the convention and the first federal government. Unlike Jefferson and Adams, who were abroad at the time, Hamilton participated in the 1787 convention, helped draft the Constitution, and then wrote most of The Federalist Papers, which explained the principles of rights-protecting government and the separation of powers, the dangers of a single-branch Continental government, and the case for a new charter of liberty. Hamilton’s arguments also helped overcome formidable anti-Federalist opposition to the Constitution at state ratifying conventions (especially in his home state of New York).

Like few others, Hamilton recognized the philosophical distinctiveness and historical significance of the 1787 convention and subsequent ratification debate. Most governments existed due to conquest or fortuitous hereditary succession, and most of those formed after revolutions were authoritarian. In Federalist #1, Hamilton told Americans that they were “to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.” Moreover, he argued, although authoritarian rule in America certainly was to be avoided, lasting liberty and security were impossible without a strong executive. In Federalist #70, he argued:

[E]nergy in the Executive [branch of government] is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy.

Judging The Federalist Papers as a whole, Washington wrote, they have “afforded me great satisfaction.”

I have read every performance which has been printed on one side and the other of the great question [Constitution or not] lately agitated [and] I will say that I have seen no other so well calculated (in my judgment) to produce conviction on an unbiased mind, as [this] Production. . . . When the transient circumstances and fugitive performances which attended this crisis shall have disappeared, that work will merit the notice of Posterity; because in it are candidly discussed the principles of freedom & the topics of government, which will be always interesting to mankind so long as they shall be connected in Civil Society.35

Jefferson, too, extolled the immense value of The Federalist Papers (aka The Federalist). He told Madison he had read them “with care, pleasure and improvement” because they provided “the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written.” Jefferson didn’t support the Constitution until after it was ratified and amended, but he saw how The Federalist “establishes firmly the plan of government,” which “rectified me in several points.”36

Yet in smear campaigns against the Federalists, critics (then and today) falsely charged Washington, Hamilton, and their allies with “monarchical” aggrandizement and assaults on “states’ rights.” In truth, as advocates of limited, rights-protecting government, the Federalists primarily sought to supplement the already precarious, single-branch Continental government with an executive branch and a judicial branch, and thereby to create an efficient, workable government with powers checked and balanced so the nation wouldn’t tip into either tyranny or anarchy.37 “As to my own political Creed,” Hamilton wrote to a friend in 1792, “I give it to you with the utmost sincerity. I am affectionately attached to the Republican theory. I desire above all things to see the equality of political rights exclusive of all hereditary distinction firmly established by a practical demonstration of its being consistent with the order and happiness of society.” He continued:

It is yet to be determined by experience whether [Republicanism] be consistent with that stability and order in Government which are essential to public strength & private security and happiness. On the whole, the only enemy which Republicanism has to fear in this Country is in the Spirit of faction and anarchy. If this will not permit the ends of Government to be attained under it—if it engenders disorders in the community, all regular & orderly minds will wish for a change—and the demagogues who have produced the disorder will make it for their own aggrandizement. This is the old Story. If I were disposed to promote Monarchy & overthrow State Governments, I would mount the hobby horse of popularity—I would cry out usurpation—danger to liberty &c. &c—I would endeavour to prostrate the National Government—raise a ferment—and then “ride in the Whirlwind and direct the Storm.” That there are men acting with Jefferson & Madison who have this in view I verily believe.38

Of course, state constitutions already existed, and the new federal Constitution didn’t displace them. But few protected rights as well as the federal charter. Most had protectionist features, many enshrined slavery (the federal charter permitted a prohibition of slave imports starting in 1808), and some (Massachusetts) even mandated taxpayer funding of schools or churches. The aim of Article I, Section 10, of the federal Constitution was to stop states’ assaults on liberty—not to increase but to decrease governmental capacity to violate rights. In addition to forbidding states from printing irredeemable paper money, it forbade them from passing targeted, discriminatory laws (bills of attainder); ex post facto laws; laws impairing “the obligation of contracts”; protectionist laws; acts granting “any title of nobility”; and conspiratorial compacts against liberty among the states or with foreign powers. The states, especially in the South, weren’t the havens of liberty today’s anarcho-libertarians claim.39

An important yet rarely acknowledged fact about the Declaration of Independence is that it cited a lack of sufficient government. Yes, Britain’s king had violated Americans’ rights, but he also had “abdicated Government here” in America; “refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good”; forbade “his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance”; “refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people”; “obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing Judiciary powers”; and “dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly,” which left the states “exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.” Liberty, the Federalists recognized, wasn’t possible without law, order, and security.

The establishment and maintenance of rights-protecting law, order, and security as the proper function of government was profoundly important to Hamilton and the Federalists. They held that government must abide by the supreme law of the land (the Constitution)—and that citizens and firms must abide by statutory, criminal, and commercial law. They recognized that capricious law enforcement is dangerous and breeds injustice and lawlessness. But not everyone agreed. For instance, when Washington, Hamilton, and the Federalists reacted firmly against the perpetrators of Shays’s Rebellion (i.e., against legitimate creditor claims in 1786), the Whiskey Rebellion (against a light excise tax in 1794), and Fries’s Rebellion (against a mild land and slave tax in 1799), they were accused of tyranny by critics who excused the rebels and urged still further revolts. In 1794, Hamilton argued as follows:

What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of security in a Republic? The answer would be: an inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws—the first growing out of the last. It is by this, in a great degree, that the rich and powerful are to be restrained from enterprises against the common liberty—operated upon by the influence of a general sentiment, by their interest in the principle, and by the obstacles which the habit it produces erects against innovation and encroachment. It is by this, in a still greater degree, that caballers, intriguers, and demagogues are prevented from climbing on the shoulders of faction to the tempting seats of usurpation and tyranny. . . . A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government. . . . A large and well organized Republic can scarcely lose its liberty from any other cause than that of anarchy, to which a contempt of the laws is the high road.40

In making a case for a new federal constitution and a practical form of legitimate sovereignty, Hamilton and the Federalists weren’t curbing liberty but better preserving it by curing the lack of governance, which, by flirting with anarchy, invited tyranny.41 Although it’s often assumed that the anti-Federalist, Jeffersonian approach was solidly rights-based and descended from Locke, in truth it departed in crucial ways from principled positions on individual rights and free markets.42 Some revolutionary-era critics of Hamilton and the Federalists seemed to fear not a loss of liberty, but rather a diminution of their power to persist in state-sanctioned liberty violations—the same kind of fear felt later by slaver-secessionists in the Confederacy. Other critics, precursors of today’s anarcho-libertarians and neo-confederates,43 seemed to detest Hamiltonian principles, not because they put the nation on some inevitable path to statism but because the principles meant (and mean) that it was possible to effect a rationally designed plan of governance that better protected rights, even from the states’ encroachments. Anarchists, believing all forms of government to be oppressive, deny that such governance is possible.

The extent to which American government today is statist, whether at the state or federal level, has mostly to do with changes over the past century in the culture’s philosophy—toward altruism, “social justice,” and direct (unrestrained) democracy—and little if anything to do with Hamiltonian doctrines or governance.

Hamilton today would be appalled to learn that for a century the United States has been governed not by principled, constitutional statesmen, but by pandering, democratic politicians who have failed to uphold and apply the Constitution, especially its equal protection clause (see today’s discriminatory laws, taxes, and regulations), and have failed in myriad ways to protect property rights. Like recent scholars such as Tara Smith, Bernard Siegen, and Richard A. Epstein, he would extol objective judicial review and see the welfare-regulatory state as involved in unconstitutional takings and restrictions.44

The Dangers of Democracy and Religion

Unlike their opponents, Hamilton and the Federalists strongly distrusted democracy, or rule by “the people” (“demos”), because historically (and on principle) it didn’t protect rights and liberty. Rather, democracy typically degenerated into anarchy, mutual envy, spoliation, and then tyranny as mobs enlisted brutes to restore order. Hamilton saw that democracies invite demagogues, unprincipled agitators, and power lusters who appeal to the people’s worst emotions and prejudices to aggrandize themselves and government power.

Writing in Federalist #1, Hamilton observed that “of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.” In Federalist #85, he observed that history offers “a lesson of moderation to all the sincere lovers of the Union, and ought to put them upon their guard against hazarding anarchy, civil war, a perpetual alienation of the States from each other, and perhaps the military despotism of a victorious demagogue, in the pursuit of what they are not likely to obtain.” At New York’s ratifying convention (June 1788) he said,

[I]t has been observed by an honorable gentleman, that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved, that no position in politics is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity: When they assembled, the field of debate presented an ungovernable mob, not only incapable of deliberation, but prepared for every enormity. In these assemblies, the enemies of the people brought forward their plans of ambition systematically. They were opposed by their enemies of another party; and it became a matter of contingency, whether the people subjected themselves to be led blindly by one tyrant or by another.45

Hamilton recognized that rationality, intelligence, and knowledge matter, and that “the people” en masse are, by definition, not the best and brightest. He understood that “the people” can and often do adopt a herd mentality, through which they can descend to a low and potentially dangerous common denominator. He knew that truth and justice aren’t determined by popular opinion.

At the 1787 constitutional convention, Hamilton argued that “this government has for its object public strength and individual security,” that a popular assembly unchecked by constitutional law has an “un-controlling disposition,” and that we must “check the imprudence of democracy.” He further noted that “the voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God,” but “however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true to fact,” for “the people are turbulent and changing” and “seldom judge or determine right.”46 Thus, he argued, those not directly and popularly elected—the president, senators (at the time),47 and judiciary—must prevent rights-violating popular rule.

In response to “charges that he was an elitist promoting a tyrannical aristocracy,” recounts Maggie Riechers in “Honor Above All,” Hamilton said:

And whom would you have representing us in government? Not the rich, not the wise, not the learned? Would you go to some ditch by the highway and pick up the thieves, the poor, and the lame to lead our government? Yes, we need an aristocracy to be running our government, an aristocracy of intelligence, integrity, and experience.48

Hamilton saw that the problem is not “elites” per se (as many claim today). Those with higher education and financial success can be poor political thinkers or become less enlightened over time. But people with substantial knowledge of the humanities who also have succeeded substantially in life are rarely worse political thinkers or practitioners than the broad populace—especially when the populace has been “schooled” by the government. (On that last note, whereas Jefferson, Adams, and others advocated public schools, Hamilton and most Federalists did not.)

Brookhiser Interview on The Federalists

Although the U.S. Constitution itself directly pledged a republican form of government, America over the past century has become more democratic, which partly explains why she’s also become more statist.  At every level of government now, people face a punitively redistributive and regulatory state. This is not a Hamiltonian conception of America.

The best of America also has been secular, not religious. The Puritans of New England and the Salem witch trials, in the early colonial era, are obvious examples of America at her worst, especially compared to later periods, when Jefferson and others (including Hamilton) extolled religious liberty and the separation of church and state. But the far greater damage to America in the past century has come not from violations of that legal separation but from a spread of religious belief that undergirds ever-increasing demands for “social justice” and ever-more interventionism by a welfare-regulatory state. On this score, what models, among the founders, might Americans today turn to for guidance?

Jefferson and several other founders were substantially religious—even deriving their moral code from the Bible. At times, Jefferson obsessed about the morals prescribed by religion, as when he issued his own version of the Bible (shorn of its miracles), within which he found rationalizations for slavery. He also believed that Jesus provided “the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man.”49 “Eternal bliss” is attainable, wrote Jefferson, if you “adore God,” “murmur not at the ways of Providence,” and “love your country more than yourself.”50 Today, those on the religious “right” and religious left alike invoke such views to justify a Christian welfare state.

Hamilton, in contrast, was one of the least religious founders.51 He did believe in the existence of a deity and held that it was the source of man, hence also of man’s rights. Like others in his day, he erred in assuming a supernatural element in “natural rights.” But he didn’t espouse the need to adore God or love your country more than yourself or the like. Neither did he attend church regularly. Although on his deathbed he twice requested communion, he twice was denied it by ministers who were his friends and knew that he was no deep believer.

Hamilton may have been a deist, but that was the extent of his religiosity. He certainly didn’t regard God as an intervening force nor as a needed one. Known for his logical and lawyerly writing, Hamilton never cited the Bible in any argument, as he didn’t believe it should inform or control politics (or vice versa).52 Working with other Federalists at the 1787 convention, he made sure the Constitution (unlike the Declaration) also invoked no deity. Indeed, Section 3 of Article VI, which Hamilton and the Federalists strongly endorsed, said no federal officeholder or employee was required to accept any religion (the “no religious test”), and this applied to the states also, as officers at both levels were required to uphold the Constitution. Whereas Ben Franklin, in a moment of gridlock and despair at the convention, moved to have the assembled framers pray for God’s assistance, Hamilton objected, saying there was no need for “foreign aid.” The motion was quietly tabled. On occasion Hamilton unabashedly even mocked or denounced religionists. He once wrote that “there never was any mischief but had a priest or a woman at the bottom,” and later, that “the world has been scourged with many fanatical sects in religion who, inflamed by a sincere but mistaken zeal, have perpetuated, under the idea of serving God, the most atrocious crimes.”53

The combined effect of democracy and religion has been destructive to America. Indeed, it has violated rights, curbed liberty, and fueled growth of the welfare state.54 To the extent that Americans accept the idea that we must love others as much as ourselves and be our brother’s keeper and the like, Americans will continue supporting politicians who pass and enforce laws to ensure that we do. And to the extent that such religiously minded Americans gain more direct—that is, more democratic—control over government, federal and state governments will become more tyrannical. Religion and democracy are antithetical to liberty and prosperity.

On the spread of democracy in the past century, observe that many Americans in the late 19th century had no right to vote at the federal level, yet in business and personal matters they were relatively free, low taxed, and unregulated. Today, nearly all have a right to vote, but for the past century the only “electable” politicians have been those who damned the rich, redistributed wealth, and violated rights in accordance with biblical (and Marxist) injunctions.

Hamilton embodied and contributed to the enlightened century in which he lived, one guided largely by vox intellentia (the voice of reason) instead of medievalism’s vox dei (the voice of god). Yet the ideals of reason and constitutionalism gave way, in the early 19th century, to those of religion and democracy. Religion (i.e., acceptance of ideas on faith) would come in new, secular forms, such as transcendentalism and, later, Marxism. The Federalist party faded away, and Hamiltonian principles were eclipsed by demands for rule by “the people” (democracy), with vox populi (the voice of the people) as the new (albeit secular) god. Fortunately, Hamiltonian ideas were strong enough to inspire and enable Lincoln and the new GOP to extend the Federalist system, abolish slavery, and give America her so-called Gilded Age, up to World War I. But, thereafter, democratic populism became dominant, to her great detriment.

Hamilton’s last letter, to a fellow Federalist in 1804, expressed his worry that there might be an eventual “dismemberment” of the United States, “a clear sacrifice of great positive advantages, without any counterbalancing good,” which would bring “no relief to our real Disease; which is Democracy.”55

His worry was well founded.

Capitalist Political Economy

Political economy studies the relationship between political and economic activity, or, more broadly, political and economic systems. Even though “capitalism” as a politico-economic term wasn’t coined until the mid-19th century (with a derogatory meaning, by French socialists),56 Hamiltonian political economy was essentially pro-capitalist in both theory and practice.

Unlike some of his critics, Hamilton argued that all sectors of the economy are virtuous, productive, and interdependent.

Unlike some of his critics, Hamilton argued that all sectors of the economy are virtuous, productive, and interdependent. Labor must be free (not enslaved) and mobile, as should goods and capital, both domestically and internationally. Hamilton and the Federalists insisted that property rights be secured and protected; government must recognize and support the sanctity of voluntary contract, and impose penalties on those who refuse to meet their legal or financial obligations. Hamilton held that taxes (including tariffs) should be low and uniform in rate, not discriminatory, favor-based, or protectionist; and there should be no coercive redistribution of wealth.57 His only case for public subsidy was to encourage the domestic production of munitions that might prove critical to America’s national defense. He recognized that the young and vulnerable nation relied too heavily for such things on foreign powers, including potential enemies.

Hamilton’s views on political economy are most clearly presented in his Report on Manufacturers (1791), where he shows how the various economic sectors—whether agriculture, manufacturing, commerce, or finance—are productive and mutually supportive. He saw a harmony of inter-sectorial self-interest and rejected what we now call “class warfare.” Unlike Adam Smith, who stressed the role of manual labor in wealth production, Hamilton stressed the role of the mind: “To cherish and stimulate the activity of the human mind,” he wrote, “by multiplying the objects of enterprise, is not among the least considerable of the expedients by which the wealth of a nation may be promoted.” And he saw that rational effort and productiveness thrived best in a complex, diversified economy: “Every new scene which is opened to the busy nature of man to rouse and exert itself is the addition of a new energy” for the economy, he wrote. And “the spirit of enterprise, useful and prolific as it is, must necessarily be contracted or expanded in proportion to the simplicity or variety of the occupations and productions which are to be found in a Society.”58

Hamilton also cheerily welcomed immigrants, especially those who seek “exemption from the chief part of the taxes, burthens, and restraints which they endure in the old world” and those who prize “greater personal independence and consequence, under the operation of a more equal government, and of what is far more precious than mere religious toleration—a perfect equality of religious privileges.” Hamilton held that it was in “the interest of the United States to open every possible avenue to emigration from abroad.” Unlike today’s anti-immigration nationalists, Hamilton was a pro-immigration individualist.

In his Report on Manufactures, Hamilton extolls a “system of perfect liberty to industry and commerce” and says that “the option ought, perhaps, always to be in favor of leaving industry to its own discretion.” He also worries that nations abroad do not permit perfect economic liberty and that this can disadvantage America. By “perfect liberty” Hamilton does not mean that government must play no role or that it should keep its hands off the economy in the sense of not even protecting rights (as some libertarian anarchists today misconstrue the doctrine of laissez-faire). Hamilton denies that there should be such a complete separation of government and the economy. In accordance with its obligation to uphold property rights and enforce contracts, a proper government necessarily “helps” those who produce, earn, and trade wealth—and it “harms” those who instead choose to rob, defraud, or extort. In Hamilton’s view, these are not favors or privileges, but political acts of justice.

Hamilton also recognized that legitimate state functions, such as those of the police, military, and courts, require funding, which can come only from wealth producers. A proper government provides legitimate services that foster economic productiveness. And a moral citizenry financially supports such a government so that it can do so.

In short, Hamilton’s political economy isn’t “statist,” “mercantilist,” or “corporatist” (as libertarian detractors claim and illiberal sympathizers hope); rather, it is, simply, capitalist.

Critics of Hamilton’s political economy—especially Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams—denied the legitimacy and probity of banking, finance, commerce, and (to a lesser extent) manufacturing. They did so because they were enamored of the French doctrine of “physiocracy,” the notion that economic added value and productive virtue derive from agriculture exclusively. On this view, if other sectors, such as (urban) manufacturing, exhibit wealth—especially great wealth—it must be ill-gotten gain, achieved at the expense of hard-working farmers and planters.59 Equal legal treatment, on this view, privileges undeserving sectors; respectful treatment of the “moneyed interests” somehow harms the “landed interest.” Such false charges were especially disingenuous coming from slaveholding plantation aristocrats.

Some of Hamilton’s critics also believed that farming and agriculture are divinely superior to all other kinds of work. Jefferson, for instance, in his Notes on the State of Virginia, asserted that “those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God,” that in them alone God “made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue.” He also said we must “never wish to see our citizens occupied at a work-bench, or twirling a distaff.” Instead, he said, “for the general operations of manufacture, let our work-shops remain in Europe.”60

Many scholars have explained (typically with a strong hint of approval) that the political economy of Jefferson and the anti-Federalists was predominantly anticapitalist—in some ways even fuel for the modern environmentalist movement—and that many of its features persist today, in public attitudes and economic policies, both in America and globally.61

America was well served by Hamiltonian political economy. In its heyday, during the half century following the Civil War (1865–1914), U.S. economic production multiplied rapidly, as innovation, invention, and living standards skyrocketed. In contrast, the spread of more democratic and populist political rule over the past century—and with it more public spending, taxing, and regulating—has brought a deceleration in output growth, and even stagnation.

Public Finance: Money, Debt, and Taxes

Hamilton was a strong proponent of sound and stable money (a gold-silver standard), a vigorous private banking system, restraint on government spending (what he called “economy”), low and uniform tax and tariff rates, minimal regulation, a diminishing public debt, and solidity in public credit (defined as an adequate capacity to borrow). America has been at her best when these monetary-fiscal elements have been institutionalized, as they were in the 1790s and (to a lesser extent) in the 1920s. Unfortunately, these elements are not operative today, and America is suffering accordingly.

Hamilton was known by senior officials for his financial acumen and was appointed by President Washington as the first U.S. Treasury secretary. He witnessed America during her “critical period” (1781­–1789) suffering from an array of depreciating state monies, massive debts, burdensome taxes, interstate protectionism, and economic stagnation. Upon taking office, Hamilton began authoring comprehensive plans of fiscal and monetary reform, which, once approved by Congress and administered by his office, transformed America from a debt-defaulting bankrupt nation issuing worthless paper money into an honorable debt-paying nation practicing fiscal rectitude and issuing gold- and silver-based dollars.

Critics claimed that Hamilton’s reforms were intended to benefit only public bondholders and the “moneyed interests” on Wall Street, but in truth all economic sectors benefited from a more stable and predictable governance and the corresponding extension of rational, foward-looking business planning in the marketplace. And, in the 1790s, with freer trade, U.S. imports tripled.

Critics then (as now) misclassified Hamilton as a champion of expansive government debt, as if he were a proto-Keynesian enamored of deficit spending as a means of boosting the economy. In truth, however, Hamilton’s Treasury in 1789 inherited massive debt. It was not Hamilton’s fault that the Revolutionary War entailed huge deficit spending. Wars cost money. And, in fighting the Revolutionary War, the U.S. government spent a great deal more money than it collected in taxes (Jefferson and others opposed tax financing).62 Consequently, the war was financed in part by loans from patriotic and wealthy Americas, loans from France and the Dutch, issuance by Congress of irredeemable paper money, underprovisioning of soldiers, underpaying of officers, and commandeering of resources from private citizens.

Whereas Jefferson and others demanded postwar defaults and debt repudiations,63 Hamilton defended the sanctity of contract and demanded honorable repayments. He arranged to service all federal debts and even to consolidate, assume, and service state debts at the federal level, arguing that independence from Britain and the war were won nationally, that states shouldn’t be left unequally burdened by war debts, and that each should start fresh with little debt, low taxes, and no tariffs. In 1790, the U.S. public debt burden was 40 percent of GDP; but Hamilton, helped by congressional Federalists, halved that to just 20 percent of GDP by the time he left office in 1795.

When Hamilton saw public debt as excessive or in default he counseled calm and explained how to fix it by affordable resumptions of payment. Longer term, he advised principal reduction by budget surpluses achieved mainly by restraint on spending. In a 1781 letter to Robert Morris, then superintendent of finance, Hamilton wrote that “a national debt if it is not excessive will be to us a national blessing; it will be powerful cement of our union.”64 Critics have omitted the context to suggest Hamilton believes “a national debt . . . is a national blessing.”65 Not so. His view is that public borrowing mustn’t be a major source of funding, nor excessive, nor unserviceable, nor repudiated.

In 1781, Hamilton, foreseeing a union few others did, counseled Morris not to despair about the debt. By his reckoning, he could craft a plan to begin fully servicing it  soon after the war, to the benefit of all parties. And that’s exactly what he did. He also wanted to facilitate reductions in U.S. debt. In 1790, he wrote Congress that “so far from acceding to the position that ‘public debts are public benefits,’ a position inviting to prodigality, and liable to dangerous abuse,” the body should codify “as a fundamental maxim, in the system of the public credit of the United States, that the creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment.” He advised steady repayments so that in a decade “the whole of the debt shall be discharged.”66 Fearing America might become more democratic and overaccumulate debt, in 1795 he wrote of “a general propensity in those who administer the affairs of government to shift off the burden [of spending] from the present to a future day—a propensity which may be expected to be strong in proportion as the form of the state is popular.”67

Hamilton’s financial reforms also fostered nationwide banking in America, as well as efficient, low-burden tax collection through the Bank of the United States (BUS), which was chartered from 1791 to 1811. This was no “central bank,” as some libertarians and statists claim. Privately owned, the BUS issued gold-and-silver-convertible money and lent little to the federal government. No such prudential features describe today’s actual, politicized central banks. Hamilton arranged specifically for the BUS to be apolitical, quite unlike the Federal Reserve. “To attach full confidence to an institution of this nature,” he wrote, “an essential ingredient in its structure” is that it “be under a private not a public direction, under the guidance of individual interest, not of public policy,” never “liable to being too much influenced by public necessity,” because “suspicion of this would most likely be a canker that would continually corrode the vitals of the credit of the Bank.” If ever “the credit of the Bank be at the disposal of the government,” there would be a “calamitous abuse of it.”68 Hamilton made sure that didn’t happen. The bank was a success precisely because, unlike today’s central banks, it was privately owned and operated, as well as monetarily sound.

Foreign Policy for Rights, Liberty, and Security

Hamilton and the Federalists saw that the purpose of U.S. foreign policy is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and thus the rights, liberty, and security of the American people. In other words, they held that America must promote and protect its rational self-interest, that the standard for conducting international relations is the need of the U.S. government to secure the rights of U.S. citizens.69 On this key principle, as we’ll see, Hamilton and the Federalists  differed considerably from the views of Jefferson, the anti-Federalists, and their progeny.70

Hamilton eschewed a foreign policy of weakness, appeasement, vacillation, defenselessness, self-sacrifice, surrender, or breaking promises.

Rational self-interest calls for defending a nation against foreign aggressors as much as for cooperating and trading with friendly states, whether by treaty, military alliance, open borders, or international trade. Hamilton eschewed a foreign policy of weakness, appeasement, vacillation, defenselessness, self-sacrifice, surrender, or breaking promises. Nor did he advocate imperialism, “nation-building,” or altruistic crusades to “make the world safe for democracy” (Woodrow Wilson), or pursuing a “forward strategy for freedom” (George W. Bush) for people fundamentally unwilling or unable to achieve it.

Hamilton (and the Federalists) also believed that national defense required a reasonably paid standing army and navy plus an academy (West Point) for professional training. Opponents insisted that this was too costly and inferior to reliance on patriotic but amateur militia assembled temporarily in response to invasions. As sequential presidents in the early 1800s, Jefferson and Madison radically reduced spending on the army and navy. Jefferson also helped fund (and prolong) Napoleon’s wars via the Louisiana Purchase and imposed a trade embargo on Britain, which decimated the U.S. economy and exposed America to a near loss of the War of 1812.

In Hamilton’s time, the major U.S. foreign policy challenges pertained to relations with Britain and France. Disputes about the meaning and consequence of the French Revolution, which began only months after Washington’s first inauguration, revealed the differences between Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian foreign policies.

Despite the war against Britain, and France’s support of America, during the postwar period, Washington, Hamilton, and the Federalists found the British government more civilized, law abiding, constitutional, and predictable than the French government, even though both remained monarchies. Even before 1789, France’s monarchy was unchecked by a constitution, whereas Britain’s, at least, was constitutionally limited. With the Treaty of Paris in 1783, America had begun a rapprochement with Britain—solidified later by the Jay Treaty of 1795—and trade relations between the countries soon expanded.

These new peace and trade agreements were defended strenuously by Hamilton and the Federalists but opposed by Jefferson, Madison, and their emerging political party (the Democratic Republicans), who despised Britain and adored France—despite the beheading of Louis XVI and the royals, Robespierre’s Reign of Terror, and Napoleon’s despotic, imperialistic reign. To their credit, Hamilton and the Federalists consistently condemned the French Revolution and its aftermath. Hamilton even predicted the rise of a Napoleonic-type despot.71

Jefferson, U.S. foreign minister in Paris from 1784 to 1789, applauded the French Revolution and frequently smeared its critics (including Washington and Hamilton) as “monocrats.” In January 1793, only weeks before the regicide, Jefferson, now U.S. secretary of state, wrote how his “affections” were “deeply wounded by some of the martyrs,” but how he’d rather “have seen half the earth desolated” “than [the French Revolution] should have failed.”72 A month later France declared war on Britain. Washington asked his cabinet for advice, and Hamilton wrote the long letter that became the president’s Neutrality Proclamation of May 1793. Jefferson and Madison opposed neutrality, insisting that the United States back France—meaning that America would again be at war with Britain—despite what France had become. They held that not self-interest but gratitude for France’s assistance during America’s Revolutionary War should decide the matter. And they believed it was always legitimate to depose or kill monarchs and install democracies, even if doing so brought chaos and the impossibility of rights-protecting constitutionalism.

Hamilton saw that France was motivated not by goodwill for America but by a desire to weaken Britain. He held that the United States wasn’t obliged to remain in a treaty with France, given its post-1789 brutality, its radical change in form of government, and its eagerness to wage war on a nation that had become a top U.S. trading partner.

Cicero: The Founders' Father

Hamilton’s international policy was and is often falsely described as “protectionist.” Tariffs were the most common source of government funding in this era, and Hamilton adamantly opposed trade disruptions that might reduce tariff revenues and boost the national debt. He held that if tariff rates were low and uniform, they were justifiable and relatively painless. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 had originated in Hamilton’s valiant attempt (at the 1786 Annapolis Convention) to craft an agreement to reduce interstate tariffs and quotas. In short, Hamilton wanted a free trade zone for America. The eventual product of 1787, a fully ratified U.S. Constitution, plainly prohibited interstate trade barriers. These were hardly the motives or actions of a protectionist.

As Hamilton put it in 1795, “the maxims of the United States have hitherto favored a free intercourse with all the world. They have concluded that they had nothing to fear from the unrestrained completion of commercial enterprise and have only desired to be admitted upon equal terms.”73 Jefferson and Madison, in contrast, sought higher tariffs to minimize resort to excise taxes (which they deemed more onerous to freedom). They also favored tariff discrimination, with higher rates imposed on imports from Britain and lower ones on imports from France. And, as presidents, both adopted protectionist policies, which damaged the U.S. economy and sabotaged U.S. foreign relations.74

Whether regarding war and peace or protectionism and trade, Hamilton usually was restrained and cosmopolitan, whereas his opponents were typically aggressive and provincial. He eschewed foreign adventurism and empire building; they praised it. According to Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson, Jefferson “wished genuinely to reform the world” yet also “feared contamination by it,” so his foreign policy was a perpetual “alternation between interventionist and isolationists moods and policies.” They continue, in their book, Empire of Liberty: The Statecraft of Thomas Jefferson, that Jefferson thought “free political and economic institutions would flourish in America only if they took root elsewhere, an idea that has, in turn, underlain much of the crusading impulse in the century.” He also held “the conviction that despotism [abroad] meant war,” and, “on this view, the indispensable condition of a lasting peace was the replacement of autocratic regimes by governments based on consent.”75 These were the roots of “progressive” schemes to “make the world safe for democracy,” depose autocrats for ballot boxes, and selflessly and interminably entangle the United States abroad. Hamilton, in contrast, wanted strong yet defensive U.S. military power; he knew that democracy was more likely to be the unsafe option globally. As Michael P. Federici writes in The Political Philosophy of Alexander Hamilton, Hamilton’s foreign policy was free entirely of the “messianic pretensions in twentieth-century nationalisms like Wilsonianism and the New Deal or totalitarian ideologies.”76

結論

From the time he came to America in 1772 as a young immigrant, to the time and effort he expended on behalf of the Revolution, independence, war, the Constitution, and early presidencies, Hamilton was the quintessential American. He was an indefatigable statesman, master builder of a political-fiscal foundation so rational and solid that, for the next century, it enabled the United States to become even freer and more prosperous.

Writing in 1795, Hamilton said that the rest of the world should come to see the United States as a moral-political role model, “a people who originally resorted to a revolution in government, as a refuge from encroachments on rights,” “who have a due respect for property and personal security,” who “have in a very short period, from mere reasoning and reflection, without tumult or bloodshed, adopted a form of general government calculated” so as to “give strength and security to the nation, to rest the foundations of liberty on the basis of justice, order, and law.” The American people, he said, “have at all times been content to govern themselves without intermeddling with the affairs or governments of other nations.”77 Writing in 1784, at age 27, Hamilton cherished the prospect of constitutional liberty in America, but he also feared its eventual loss:

If we set out with justice, moderation, liberality, and a scrupulous regard to the constitution, the government will acquire a spirit and tone, productive of permanent blessings to the community. If on the contrary, the public councils are guided by humour, passion and prejudice; if from resentment of individuals, or a dread of partial inconveniences, the constitution is slighted or explained away, upon every frivolous pretext, the future spirit of government will be feeble, distracted and arbitrary. The rights of the subject will be the sport of every party vicissitude. There will be no settled rule of conduct, but everything will fluctuate with the alternate prevalency of contending factions.

The world has its eye upon America. The noble struggle we have made in the cause of liberty, has occasioned a kind of revolution in human sentiment. The influence of our example has penetrated the gloomy regions of despotism, and has pointed the way to inquiries, which may shake it to its deepest foundations. Men begin to ask everywhere, who is this tyrant, that dares to build his greatness on our misery and degradation? What commission has he to sacrifice millions to the wanton appetites of himself and the few minions that surround his throne?

To ripen inquiry into action, it remains for us to justify the revolution by its fruits. If the consequences prove, that we really have asserted the cause of human happiness, what may not be expected from so illustrious an example? In a greater or less degree, the world will bless and imitate! But if experience, in this instance, verifies the lesson long taught by the enemies of liberty; that the bulk of mankind are not fit to govern themselves, that they must have a master, and were only made for the rein and the spur, we shall then see the final triumph of despotism over liberty. The advocates of the latter must acknowledge it to be an ignis fatuus and abandon the pursuit. With the greatest advantages for promoting it, that ever a people had, we shall have betrayed the cause of human nature.78

Hamilton’s critics, with insufficient evidence and considerable context dropping, have accused him variously of being a monarchist, a nationalist, a cronyist, a mercantilist, a protectionist, and an imperialist. In truth, he was none of those things. He viewed such positions as variations on Old World error and adamantly opposed them. Here are some of Hamilton’s most important positions and efforts—along with correspondingly false accusations about him:

  • Knowing that the impotent Articles of Confederation lacked an executive branch, Hamilton sought to provide one—and was falsely accused of being a “monocrat.”
  • Knowing that thirteen states in conflict were prone to control by foreign powers, Hamilton sought to provide a national, rights-protecting government—and was falsely accused of being a “nationalist” eager to subjugate the rights of the individual.
  • Knowing that America’s money, banking, and credit were in disarray, Hamilton sought to fix them—and was falsely accused of favoring mysterious, unnamed cronies on Wall Street.
  • Knowing that decades of British mercantilist policy had rendered America overly agricultural, he sought a system of freer trade and encouragement of manufacturing—and was falsely accused of being a protectionist and industrial planner.
  • Knowing that America could not maintain her security without a professionally trained and well-prepared military focused solely on protecting the homeland instead of foreign adventurism, Hamilton wanted a standing army and a military academy at West Point—and was falsely accused of being a warmongering imperialist.

Without too much difficulty, Hamilton could have done what many American colonists in his time chose to do: remain safely the loyal subject of Britain, comfortably placed to participate in its zealous devotion to monarchism, mercantilism, and imperialism. Hamilton could have stayed and lived and worked in his beloved New York City, which the British occupied peaceably during a long war. Instead, he spent two decades—longer than anyone else—helping Washington build and launch the United States of America, which meant fighting to create a new nation that rejected monarchism, mercantilism, and imperialism. There is evidence that, in the first few decades of the 19th century, some of Hamilton’s most virulent opponents changed some of their views and came to believe much of what Hamilton himself had contended initially—most notably about constitutionalism, manufacturing, finance, slavery, and foreign policy.79 This further speaks to Hamilton’s originality, courage, and prescience.

Some say America’s best is neither fully Hamiltonian nor fully Jeffersonian, but instead a judicious, balanced mix of each. The first, it is believed, would bring too much elitism, capitalism, or inequality, the latter too much populism, agrarianism, or democracy. Yet America suffers from the latter, not the former. For decades she’s been morphing into a European-style “social democracy,” a socialist-fascist system achieved not by bullets (revolting) but ballots (voting), as if democracy can whitewash evil.

In a short life, Hamilton made America the best that he could. It was pretty good indeed. She hasn’t always lived up to the heights he wished for her. But, today, as in the founding era, America at her best is Hamiltonian.

This article was originally published in The Objectivist Standard and has been reposted with the author's permission.

Richard M. Salsman Ph.D.
About the author:
Richard M. Salsman Ph.D.

Dr. Richard M. Salsman is a professor of political economy at Duke University, founder and president of InterMarket Forecasting, Inc., a senior fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, and senior scholar at The Atlas Society. In the 1980s and 1990s he was a banker at the Bank of New York and Citibank and an economist at Wainwright Economics, Inc. Dr. Salsman has authored five books: Breaking the Banks: Central Banking Problems and Free Banking Solutions (1990), The Collapse of Deposit Insurance and the Case for Abolition (1993), Gold and Liberty (1995), The Political Economy of Public Debt: Three Centuries of Theory and Evidence (2017), and Where Have all the Capitalists Gone?: Essays in Moral Political Economy (2021). He is also author of a dozen chapters and scores of articles. His work has appeared in the Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy, Reason Papers, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Sun, Forbes, the Economist, the Financial Post, the Intellectual Activist, and The Objective Standard. He speaks frequently before pro-liberty student groups, including Students for Liberty (SFL), Young Americans for Liberty(YAL), Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), and the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE).

Salsman博士在鮑登學院獲得法律和經濟學學士學位(1981年),在紐約大學獲得經濟學碩士學位(1988年),在杜克大學獲得政治經濟學博士學位(2012年)。他的個人網站可以在 https://richardsalsman.com/ 找到。

Salsman博士每月為The Atlas Society舉辦一次道德與市場網路研討會,探索倫理,政治,經濟和 市場 之間的交叉點。您還可以在這裡找到Salsman的Instagram 收購 摘錄,每個月都可以在我們的 Instagram 上找到!

最近文章(摘要)

租房銷售國家更腐敗,更不富裕 - AIER,2022年5月13日

近幾十年來,在政治經濟學領域,一個重要而有價值的重點被放在“尋租”上,“尋租”被定義為壓力集團遊說(並獲得)特殊恩惠(給予自己)和不利(強加給競爭對手或敵人)。但尋租只是政治偏袒的需求方;不太被強調的供應方——稱之為 租房銷售——才是真正的煽動者。只有國家才有能力創造零和政治恩惠、不贊成和親信。任人唯親不是資本主義的品牌,而是混合系統的癥狀;對社會經濟結果產生重大影響的干預主義國家積極邀請受影響最大、最負擔得起的人(富人和有權勢的人)進行遊說。但偏袒的根本問題不在於賄賂的需求者,而在於勒索的供應商。“裙帶資本主義”是一個公然的矛盾,是將反資本主義政策的結果歸咎於資本主義的詭計。

北約擴張是俄烏戰爭的煽動者——會所,2022 年 3 月 16 日

在這個90分鐘的音頻採訪中,薩爾斯曼博士討論了1)為什麼國家自身利益應該指導美國的外交政策(但不是),2)為什麼北約長達數十年的向東向俄羅斯邊境擴張(並暗示它可能會增加烏克蘭)助長了俄烏衝突和當前的戰爭,3)雷根 - 布希如何英勇地(和平地)贏得了冷戰, 4)本世紀的民主黨總統(柯林頓,歐巴馬,拜登)如何/為什麼拒絕培養冷戰後的和平,一直是北約的推動者,對俄羅斯無理地好戰,並破壞了美國的國家實力和安全,5)為什麼烏克蘭不自由和腐敗,不是真正的美國盟友(或北約成員國),與美國國家安全無關, 並且不值得美國任何形式的官方支援,以及 6)為什麼今天兩黨幾乎無處不在的對更廣泛戰爭的支援,由MMIC(軍事 - 媒體 - 工業 - 復合體)大力推動,既魯莽又不祥。

烏克蘭:事實不能為普京開脫,但他們確實譴責北約 —— 資本主義標準,2022 年 3 月 14 日

你不需要原諒或贊同普京的野蠻懲罰主義來承認顯而易見的事實和合理的戰略關切:承認北約、美國戰爭販子和俄羅斯恐懼症使這場衝突成為可能。他們還煽動了俄中聯盟,首先是經濟聯盟,現在是潛在的軍事聯盟。“讓世界民主”是他們的戰鬥口號,無論當地人是否想要它,或者它是否帶來自由(很少);或者它是否推翻了威權主義者並進行了公平投票。在推翻之後,大多數發生的事情是混亂、屠殺和殘酷(參見伊拉克、利比亞、埃及、巴基斯坦等)。它似乎永遠不會結束,因為破壞國家的人永遠不會學習。自2008年以來,北約一直將烏克蘭作為傀儡,實際上是北約(即美國)的附庸國。這就是為什麼拜登犯罪家族以在那裡「拉弦」而聞名的原因。2014年,北約甚至説明煽動了烏克蘭正式當選的親俄總統的政變。普京合理地希望烏克蘭成為中立緩衝區;如果像北約-拜登堅持的那樣,這是不可能的,普京寧願簡單地破壞這個地方——就像他正在做的那樣——而不是擁有它、經營它或將其用作入侵其他國家的西進舞臺。

代價高昂但蓄意的美國工作力短缺 -- AIER,2021 年 9 月 28 日

一年多來,由於 Covid 恐懼症和封鎖,美國遭受了各種類型和程度的工作力短缺,在這種情況下,潛在僱主要求的工作力數量超過了潛在雇員提供的數量。這不是偶然或暫時的。失業既是強制性的(通過關閉“非必要”企業),也是補貼(提供利潤豐厚和延長的“失業救濟金”)。這使得許多企業難以吸引和僱用足夠數量、品質、可靠性和可負擔性的工作力。物質或長期的盈餘和短缺反映的不是“市場失靈”,而是政府未能讓市場清理。為什麼連那些應該更瞭解的人都不清楚呢?這不是因為他們不懂基本的經濟學;許多人在意識形態上是反資本主義的,這使他們對僱主有偏見;他們引導馬克思,錯誤地認為資本家通過少付工人工資和向顧客收取過高的費用來獲利。

從快速增長到無增長再到去增長 ——AIER,2021年8月4日

長期的日益繁榮是通過短期的持續經濟增長實現的;繁榮是一個更廣泛的概念,不僅意味著更多的產出,而且意味著買家重視的產出品質。繁榮帶來更高的生活水平,我們享受更好的健康,更長的壽命和更大的幸福。不幸的是,美國的實證測量表明,其經濟增長率正在減速,這不是一個暫時的問題;這種情況已經發生了幾十年;可悲的是,很少有領導人認識到這一嚴峻趨勢;很少有人能解釋它;有些人甚至更喜歡它。下一步可能是推動「去增長」 ,即經濟產出的連續收縮。多年來,緩慢增長偏好被正常化,這也可能發生在去增長偏好中。今天的去增長追隨者是少數,但幾十年前增長緩慢的粉絲也是少數。

當理性消失時,暴力就進來 了—— 《資本主義》雜誌,2021年1月13日

在上周特朗普煽動的右翼襲擊美國國會大廈之後,每一「一方」都正確地指責對方虛偽,沒有「實踐他們所宣揚的」,沒有「言出必行」。。去年夏天,左翼人士試圖為自己在波特蘭、西雅圖、明尼阿波利斯和其他地方的暴力辯護(作為“和平抗議”),但現在譴責國會大廈的右翼暴力。為什麼虛偽,一種惡習,現在如此普遍? 它的對立面是正直的美德,這在當今很少見,因為幾十年來大學一直在灌輸哲學實用主義,這種學說不提倡“實用性”,而是通過堅持固定和有效的原則是不可能的(因此是可有可無的),意見是可以操縱的來破壞它。對於實用主義者來說,“感知是現實”,“現實是可以談判的”。 代替現實,他們更喜歡“虛擬實境”,而不是正義,“社會正義”。它們體現了所有虛假和虛假的東西。作為行動指南的,剩下的只是等級機會主義、權宜之計、“激進分子的規則”,無論什麼“有效”——贏得爭論、推進事業或制定法律——至少目前(直到......它無法工作)。是什麼解釋了今天的兩黨暴力?缺乏理性(和客觀性)。(字面意思)沒有理由,但有一個解釋:當理性消失時,說服與和平集會抗議也消失了。剩下的是情感主義和暴力。

拜登對股東的蔑視是法西斯主義 —— 《資本主義標準》,2020年12月16日

當選總統拜登如何看待資本主義?在去年七月的一次演講中,他說:「我們早就該結束股東資本主義時代了——即公司唯一的責任就是對股東負責。這根本不是真的。這絕對是一場鬧劇。他們對他們的工人、他們的社區、對他們的國家負有責任。這不是一個新的或激進的概念。是的,這不是一個新概念——公司必須為非擁有者(包括政府)服務。如今,每個人——從商業教授到記者,從華爾街人士到「街上的人」——似乎都支援“利益相關者資本主義”。但這也不是一個激進的概念嗎?這是法西斯主義,簡單明瞭。法西斯主義不再激進了嗎?這是「新」規範嗎——儘管是從1930年代借來的(羅斯福、墨索里尼、希特勒)?事實上,“股東資本主義”是多餘的,“利益相關者資本主義”是矛盾的。前者是真正的資本主義:生產資料(及其產出)的私有制(和控制)。後者是法西斯主義:私有制,但公共控制,由非擁有者強加。當然,社會主義是對生產資料的公共(國家)所有制和公共控制。資本主義承擔並促進互利的合同責任;法西斯主義通過殘酷地切斷擁有權和控制權來摧毀這一點。

薩西經濟學的基本真理及其當代相關性—— 經濟教育基金會,2020年7月1日

讓-巴蒂斯特·薩伊(Jean-Baptiste Say,1767-1832)是憲法限制國家的有原則的捍衛者,甚至比他的許多古典自由主義同時代人更加堅定。他以經濟學第一原理「薩伊定律」而聞名,他應該被認為是資本主義最一致和最有力的代表之一,比這個詞被創造(由它的反對者在 1850 年代)早幾十年。 幾十年來,我研究了相當多的政治經濟學,認為薩伊的《 政治經濟學論文 》(1803)是該領域有史以來最好的著作,不僅超過了當代著作,而且超過了亞當·斯密的《 國富論 》(1776)和路德維希·馮·米塞斯的《 人類行動:經濟學論文 》(1949)。

財政貨幣“刺激”令人沮喪 -- 希爾,2020年5月26日

許多經濟學家認為,公共支出和貨幣發行創造了財富或購買力。並非如此。我們獲得真正商品和服務的唯一途徑是創造財富——生產。我們的支出必須來自收入,而收入本身必須來自生產。薩伊定律教導說,只有供應才構成需求;我們必須在需求、消費或消費之前生產。經濟學家通常將衰退歸咎於「市場失靈」或「總需求不足」,但衰退主要是由於政府失靈;當政策懲罰利潤或生產時,總供應合同。

自由是不可分割的,這就是為什麼所有類型的自由現在都在侵蝕——《資本主義》雜誌,2020年4月18日

不可分割原則的要點是提醒我們,各種自由是一起上升或下降的,即使有各種滯後,即使一些自由在一段時間內似乎在上升,而另一些自由則在下降;無論自由朝哪個方向移動,最終它們都趨於吻合。自由不可分割的原則反映了這樣一個事實,即人類是身心、精神和物質、意識和存在的結合;該原則意味著人類必須選擇行使他們的理性 - 他們獨有的能力 - 來把握現實,以合乎道德的方式生活,並盡其所能地蓬勃發展。這個原則體現在一個更為人所知的原則中,即我們擁有個人權利——生命、自由、財產和追求幸福的權利——政府的唯一和正當目的是成為我們自衛權的代理人,在憲法上維護、保護和捍衛我們的權利,而不是削減或取消它們。如果一個民族想要維護自由,他們必須在所有領域為維護自由而鬥爭,而不僅僅是他們最常生活或最受青睞的領域——不是在一個領域,也不是在某個領域,而是在另一些領域,也不是在一個領域或一些領域,而不是在一個或一些領域以犧牲其他人為代價。

三方治理:正確決策的指南 ——AIER,2020年4月14日

當我們聽到「政府」這個詞時,我們大多數人都會想到政治——國家、政權、國會大廈、機構、官僚機構、行政部門和政治家。我們稱他們為“官員”,假定他們擁有獨特的、崇高的和權威的地位。 但這只是我們生活中的一種治理方式;這三種類型是公共治理、私人治理和個人治理。我最好將每一個都設想為一個控制範圍,但三者必須適當平衡,以優化權利和自由的保護。最近的不祥趨勢是公共(政治)治理對個人和私人治理領域的持續入侵。

自由的東西和不自由的人 -- AIER,2019年6月30日

今天的政客們大聲而神聖地斷言,許多東西——食物、住房、醫療保健、工作、兒童保育、更清潔、更安全的環境、交通、學校教育、公用事業,甚至大學——都應該“免費”或公共補貼。沒有人問為什麼這種說法是有效的。 它們是憑信心盲目接受還是僅僅憑直覺(感覺)來肯定?這聽起來不科學。 難道不應該所有關鍵主張都通過邏輯和證據的檢驗嗎?為什麼免費贈品聲稱對這麼多人來說「聽起來不錯」? 事實上,他們是卑鄙的,甚至是無情的,因為不自由,因此從根本上來說是不人道的。在自由的資本主義憲政制度中,法律面前人人平等,而不是歧視性的法律待遇;沒有理由將一個群體置於另一個群體之上,包括消費者對生產者的特權(反之亦然)。 每個個人(或協會)都必須有自由選擇和行動,而不必訴諸於騷擾或搶劫。 免費贈品的政治競選和政策制定方式公然迎合了欺騙,並通過擴大政府的規模、範圍和權力,也將搶劫制度化。

我們也應該慶祝財富的多樣性 -- AIER,2018年12月26日

在當今生活的大多數領域,多樣性和多樣性理所當然地受到慶祝和尊重。例如,運動和藝術才能的差異不僅意味著強大、有趣的比賽,還意味著狂熱分子(“粉絲”),他們尊重、鼓掌、獎勵和豐厚的補償獲勝者(“明星”和“冠軍”),同時也剝奪(至少相對)失敗者。然而,經濟領域——市場和商業、商業和金融、收入和財富——卻引起了幾乎相反的反應,儘管它不像體育比賽那樣是零和遊戲。在經濟領域,我們觀察到不同的才能和結果不平等的補償(正如我們應該預料的那樣),但對許多人來說,這個領域的多樣性和多樣性是被鄙視和嫉妒的,結果是可預見的:通過懲罰性稅收、嚴格的監管和定期破壞信任來永久重新分配收入和財富。在這裡,贏家比尊重更受懷疑,而輸家則得到同情和補貼。是什麼導致了這種相當奇怪的異常現象?為了正義、自由和繁榮,人們應該放棄反商業偏見,停止嘲笑財富和收入不平等。他們應該慶祝和尊重經濟領域的多樣性,至少與他們在體育和藝術領域所做的一樣多。人類的天賦有各種奇妙的形式。我們不要否認或嘲笑他們中的任何一個。

為了阻止槍支屠殺,聯邦政府必須停止解除無辜者的武裝 -- 福布斯,2012年8月12日

槍支管制宣導者希望將大規模槍擊事件歸咎於「槍支太多」,但真正的問題是槍支太少,槍支自由太少。對我國憲法第二修正案攜帶武器權利的限制招致屠殺和混亂。槍支管制員已經說服政治家和執法官員,公共區域特別容易發生槍支暴力,並推動在這些地區「無槍區」對槍支使用的繁重禁令和限制。但它們是此類犯罪的從犯,鼓勵政府禁止或限制我們基本的公民自衛權;他們煽動流浪的瘋子公開屠殺人民而不受懲罰。自衛是一項至關重要的權利;它不僅需要攜帶槍支並充分利用我們的家庭和財產,而且(尤其是)在公共場所。持槍警察實際上多久預防或阻止一次暴力犯罪?幾乎從不。他們不是“犯罪阻止者”,而是到達現場的筆記記錄者。在電影院屠殺之後,槍支銷售在過去一個月中激增,但這並不意味著這些槍支可以在電影院或許多其他公共場所使用。法律禁令是真正的問題——必須立即終止這種不公正。現在的證據是壓倒性的:沒有人再可以坦率地聲稱槍支管制者是“和平的”、“愛好和平的”或“善意的”,如果他們是關鍵公民權利的公開敵人和邪惡的卑鄙教唆者。

保護主義是相互受虐狂 —— 資本主義標準,2018年7月24日

自由貿易的邏輯和道德理由,無論是人與人之間的、國際的還是國內的,都是互惠互利的。除非有人反對收益本身或假設交換是輸贏(“零和”遊戲),否則應該預示著交易。除了自我犧牲的利他主義者,沒有人會自願交易,除非它對自己有利。特朗普承諾「讓美國再次偉大」,這是一種高尚的情感,但保護主義只會傷害而不是説明完成這項工作。福特最暢銷的卡車中大約一半的零件現在是進口的;如果特朗普有他的方式,我們甚至無法製造福特卡車,更不用說讓美國再次偉大了。按照民族主義者和本土主義者的要求,「購買美國貨」就是迴避今天的有益產品,同時低估昨天貿易全球化的好處,擔心明天的貿易全球化。正如最好的美國是個人背景、身份和出身的“大熔爐”一樣,最好的產品也體現了全球勞動力和資源的大熔爐。特朗普聲稱自己是親美的,但對自己的生產力和競爭力持不切實際的悲觀態度。鑒於自由貿易的好處,任何政府可以採取的最佳政策是單邊自由貿易(與其他非敵對政府),這意味著:自由貿易,無論其他政府是否也採取更自由貿易。

資本主義的最佳案例——資本主義標準,2017年10月10日

今天是安·蘭德(Ayn Rand,1905-1982)的《 阿特拉斯聳聳肩 》(1957)出版60周年,安·蘭德(Ayn Rand,1905-1982)是一位暢銷小說家兼哲學家,頌揚理性、理性的自我利益、個人主義、資本主義和美國主義。很少有這麼舊的書能繼續暢銷,即使是精裝本,許多投資者和首席執行官長期以來一直稱讚它的主題和洞察力。在 1990 年代為國會圖書館和月度圖書俱樂部進行的一項調查中,受訪者認為 阿特拉斯聳聳肩 是僅次於聖經的第二本書,因為它對他們的生活產生了重大影響。 社會主義者拒絕蘭德是可以理解的,因為她拒絕他們關於資本主義是剝削性的或容易崩潰的說法;然而,保守派對她持謹慎態度,因為她否認資本主義依靠宗教。她的主要貢獻是表明資本主義不僅是經濟上富有生產力的制度,而且是道德正義的制度。 它獎勵誠實、正直、獨立和富有成效的人;然而,它使那些選擇不人道的人邊緣化,它懲罰了惡毒和不人道的人。無論一個人是親資本主義者、親社會主義者,還是兩者之間的冷漠,這本書都值得一讀——她的其他作品也值得一讀,包括《 源頭》( 1943年)、《 自私的美德:利己主義的新概念 》(1964年)和 《資本主義:未知的理想 》(1966年)。

特朗普和共和黨縱容壟斷醫學 —— 資本主義標準,2017年7月20日

共和黨和特朗普總統通過拒絕「廢除和取代」歐巴馬醫改而厚顏無恥地違背了他們的競選承諾,現在聲稱他們將廢除它,看看會發生什麼。不要指望那個。從根本上說,他們並不真正介意奧巴馬醫改及其導致的“單一付款人”系統(政府藥品壟斷)。儘管這很可惡,但他們在哲學上接受它,所以他們也在政治上接受它。特朗普和大多數共和黨人寬恕歐巴馬醫改中潛伏的社會主義原則。也許他們甚至意識到它將繼續侵蝕該系統的更好方面,並導致“單一付款人系統”(政府對藥物的壟斷) - 奧巴馬[和特朗普]一直表示他們想要。今天,大多數美國選民似乎也不反對這種壟斷。幾十年後,當他們意識到獲得健康保險並不能保證獲得醫療保健(特別是在社會化醫療下,這會降低品質,可負擔性和可及性)時,他們可能會反對它。但到那時,恢復那些使美國醫學如此偉大的更自由的因素為時已晚。

不平等之辯論:不考慮掙錢的毫無意義 -- 福布斯,2012年2月1日

而不是辯論我們這個動蕩時代真正具有重大意義的問題——即政府的適當規模和範圍是什麼?(答案:更小),我們應該有更多的資本主義還是更多的社團主義?(答案:資本主義)——相反,政治媒體正在辯論所謂的“不平等”之惡。他們無恥的嫉妒最近猖獗,但對不平等的關注對保守派和左派來說都是方便的。 奧巴馬接受了一種錯誤的“公平”理論,這種理論拒絕了常識性的、基於功績的正義概念,美國老年人可能會認為這種概念是“沙漠”,在這種概念中,正義意味著我們應該得到(或贏得)我們在生活中得到的東西,如果我們是自由選擇的話。合法地,有“分配正義”,獎勵良好的或生產性的行為,以及“報應正義”,懲罰邪惡或破壞性行為。

資本主義不是社團主義或任人唯親 -- 福布斯,2011年12月7日

資本主義是人類歷史上最偉大的社會經濟制度,因為它是如此道德,如此富有成效——這兩個特徵對人類的生存和繁榮至關重要。它是道德的,因為它奉行並培養理性和自我利益——“開明的貪婪”,如果你願意的話——如果我們要追求和獲得生命和愛情、健康和財富、冒險和靈感,我們都必須有意識地採用和實踐這兩種關鍵美德。它不僅產生物質經濟上的豐富,而且產生藝術和娛樂中的美學價值。但究竟什麼是資本主義?當我們看到它或擁有它時,或者當我們沒有或沒有時,我們如何知道它? 資本主義最偉大的知識分子領袖安·蘭德(Ayn Rand,1905-1982)曾將其定義為“一種基於承認個人權利的社會制度,包括財產權,其中所有財產都是私有的。這種對真正權利(而不是強迫他人得到我們想要的東西的“權利”)的承認至關重要,它具有獨特的道德基礎。事實上,資本主義是權利、自由、文明、和平和非犧牲性繁榮的體系;不是政府制度不公正地偏袒資本家而犧牲他人的利益。它提供了一個公平的法律競爭環境,以及作為低調裁判(而不是武斷的規則制定者或分數改變者)為我們服務的官員。可以肯定的是,資本主義也意味著野心、才能、收入或財富的不平等,因為這就是個人(和公司)的真實情況;它們是獨一無二的,而不是平等主義者聲稱的克隆或可互換的部分。

聖經與福利國家 -- 福布斯,2011年4月28日

許多人想知道為什麼華盛頓似乎永遠陷入僵局,哪些政策可以治癒過度支出,預算赤字和債務。我們被告知,問題的根源是“兩極分化的政治”,“極端分子”控制著辯論,排除了只有兩黨團結才能提供的解決方案。 事實上,在許多問題上,雙方完全同意——建立在共同宗教信仰的堅實基礎上。 簡而言之,沒有太大的變化,因為雙方都同意很多,尤其是在道德上“做正確的事”意味著什麼。它沒有被廣泛報導,但大多數民主黨人和共和黨人,無論是左派還是右派,在政治上都非常虔誠,因此傾向於支持現代福利國家。即使不是所有的政治家都對此有如此強烈的感覺,他們也懷疑選民這樣做(正確地)。因此,即使是限制政府支出的小提議也會引起指責,即支援者冷酷無情,無情,不慈善,非基督徒 - 這些指控對大多數人來說都是正確的,因為聖經長期以來一直使他們接受福利國家。

資本家都去哪兒了? —— 福布斯,2010年12月5日

柏林牆倒塌(1989年)和蘇聯解體(1991年)后,幾乎每個人都承認資本主義是社會主義的歷史“勝利者”。然而,近年來,主要反映社會主義前提的干預主義政策捲土重來,而資本主義則被指責為導致2007-2009年金融危機和全球經濟衰退的原因。是什麼解釋了世界對資本主義估計的這種看似突然的轉變?畢竟,無論是資本主義還是社會主義的非政治經濟體系,都是一個廣泛而持久的現象,在邏輯上不能被解釋為一個十年是有益的,卻在下一個十年是破壞性的。那麼資本家都去哪兒了呢?奇怪的是,今天的“社會主義者”意味著將社會主義的政治經濟制度作為道德理想的宣導者,而“資本家”意味著華爾街金融家,風險資本家或企業家 - 而不是資本主義的政治經濟制度作為道德理想的宣導者。事實上,資本主義體現了理性自利的提升生活、創造財富的倫理——利己主義、“貪婪”,如果你願意的話——這也許最明顯地體現在利潤動機上。只要這種人道倫理不被信任或鄙視,資本主義就會因任何社會經濟弊病而遭受不勞而獲的指責。二十年前社會主義政權的崩潰並不意味著資本主義最終因其許多美德而受到歡迎;這一歷史事件只是提醒人們資本主義的生產能力——這種能力早已得到證明,甚至被其最大的敵人所承認。今天對資本主義的持續敵意是基於道德上的,而不是實際的。除非理性的自我利益被理解為符合真正人性的唯一道德準則,並且對資本主義的道德估計因此得到改善,否則社會主義將繼續捲土重來,儘管它有深刻而黑暗的人類苦難記錄。

未找到專案。
未找到專案。