Board logo

标题: [原创] 米塞斯在《人类行为》中论私有财产制 [打印本页]
作者: WIND    时间: 2010-3-1 11:16     标题: 米塞斯在《人类行为》中论私有财产制

HARMONY AND CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
利益的协调和冲突
4. Private Property
私有财产制

Private ownership of the means of production is the fundamental institution of the market economy. It is the institution the presence of which characterizes the market economy as such. Where it is absent, there is no question of a market economy.
生产手段的私人所有制是市场经济的基础性制度。正是这种制度赋予了市场经济这些特征。在缺乏这种制度的地方，便没有市场经济的问题。
作者: WIND    时间: 2010-3-1 11:20

我译过洛克论财产的问题，但是那是在货币刚出现不久，还没有普遍应用的时候。随着货币的普遍使用，情况变得复杂些。奥地利学派继承了经典自由主义的遗产。这一小节很短。
作者: 燕丝    时间: 2010-3-1 11:44

本帖最后由 燕丝 于 2010-3-1 11:47 编辑

挺喜欢这样的讨论，只是不知道放在这个版面是否会引起别人的不适，那就暂且枉顾一下他们的感受，跟进来过一过手瘾哈？

我注意到风兄在顶楼的一段有这样的翻译表述：“生产手段的私人所有制是市场经济的基础性制度。”首先声明，我的英语水平实在糟糕，无法判断你的翻译和原文的吻合程度，那么，只就这个翻译来说，它说的是生产手段，按我的理解，那就是说，他还是未涉及所有权问题，或说，他认为所有权和经营权是可以分离的。好，我的逻辑也只到此为止哈，我本身并未对所有权问题做出任何分析，但我的意思也很清楚了，就是说，这一段译文并未涉及所有权问题，不知所说对否？
作者: zoufeng_1234    时间: 2010-3-1 12:03

私产是商品经济的基础，这个常识性的东西好像不用讨论了吧。
作者: WIND    时间: 2010-3-1 12:41

私产是商品经济的基础，这个常识性的东西好像不用讨论了吧。
zoufeng_1234 发表于 2010-3-1 12:03
虽然短，不过至少有这个的十倍长。别急。
作者: WIND    时间: 2010-3-1 15:17

本帖最后由 WIND 于 2010-3-1 15:18 编辑

Ownership means full control of the services that can be derived from a good. This catallactic notion of ownership and property rights is not to be confused with the legal definition of ownership and property rights as stated in the laws of various countries. It was the idea of legislators and courts to define the legal concept of property in such a way as to give to the proprietor full protection by the governmental apparatus of coercion and compulsion and to prevent anybody from encroaching upon his rights. As far as this purpose was adequately realized, the legal concept of property rights corresponded to the catallactic concept. However, nowadays there are tendencies to abolish the institution of private property by a change in the laws determining the scope of the actions which the proprietor is entitled to undertake with regard to the things which are his property. While retaining the term private property, these reforms aim at the substitution of public ownership for private ownership. This tendency is the characteristic mark of the plans of various schools of Christian socialism and of nationalist socialism. But few of the champions of these schools have been so keen as the Nazi philosopher Othmar Spann, who explicitly declared that the realization of his plans would bring about a state of affairs in which the institution of private property will be preserved only in a "formal sense, while in fact there will be only public ownership." There is need to mention these things in order to avoid popular fallacies and confusion. In dealing with private property, catallactics deals with control, not with legal terms, concepts and definitions. Private ownership means that the proprietors determine the employment of the factors of production, while public ownership means that the government controls their employment.

所有权意味着对那些来源于财产的服务的完全控制。人类行为学上的所有权和财产权概念不应该与各种国家法律所陈述的所有权和财产权的法律定义相混淆。后者是指立法者和法庭定义法律上的财产概念的这种观念——通过强制性的政府机构给与所有者完全的财产保护，并使任何人的权利免于被侵犯。只要这个目的得到足够的实现，法律上的财产权概念便与人类行为学上的概念一致。然而，如今有破坏私有财产制度的倾向，即通过改变决定行动——所有者对他的财产有资格（资格是法律上的定义）采取的行动——范围的法律。在保留“私有财产”这个名词的同时，这些改革意图将私人所有权替换成公共所有权。这种倾向是各种各样的基督教社会主义和国家社会主义学派计划的特征标志。但是这些学派的拥护者很少有象纳粹哲学家Othmar Spann（1878—1950）那样直言不讳的，他明确宣称，他计划的实现将造成人类事务这样一种状态，在此状态中私有财产制度仅仅保留一种“形式上的意义，而实际上只有公共所有权”。为了避免流行的谬误和混淆有必要提到这些事情。在论及私有财产时，人类行为学说的是控制，不是法律上的名词，概念和定义。私人所有权意味着所有者决定各种生产要素的使用，而公共所有权意味着政府控制它们的使用。
作者: WIND    时间: 2010-3-1 15:43

本帖最后由 WIND 于 2010-3-1 18:05 编辑

我想到一个问题：
当我们对社会的观察聚焦于个人时，与之相应的私有财产权是有限的，确定的；当我们转到公共财产权时，它变成无限的，不确定的。这与我们在道德评判或道德选择中的原则是一样的，当我们采取康德的个人职责和权利观的时候，它是可以评判和选择的；但是当我们采取边沁的功利观的时候，便变得不确定。桑德尔提到密尔试图给出一种量度的标准，然而在最简单的产品交换中，价格尚且不能确定，又怎么谈快乐感的高低层次？
对于产品价格的不确定性，有一个极端的例子，如果两个人在沙漠中，一个人有一瓶水，一个人有1000美元，后者会与前者交换吗？
作者: WIND    时间: 2010-3-1 16:30

本帖最后由 WIND 于 2010-3-1 16:32 编辑

Private property is a human device. It is not sacred. It came into existence in early ages of history, when people with their own power and by their own authority appropriated to themselves what had previously not been anybody's property. Again and again proprietors were robbed of their property by expropriation. The history of private property can be traced back to a point at which it originated out of acts which were certainly not legal. Virtually every owner is the direct or indirect legal successor of people who acquired ownership either by arbitrary appropriation of ownerless things or by violent spoilation of their predecessor.

私有财产是一种人类的设计。它并不神圣。在人类历史的初期，当人们用他们自己的力量并通过他们自己的权力占用之前并不属于任何人的物品时，它便出现了。然而所有者总是一再的由于他人占用而丧失他们的财产。私有财产的历史可以向后追溯到一点，在这一点上法令开始规定这种占用他们的财产的行为为非法。实际上每个所有者都直接或非直接的是这些人——他们不是通过任意占有那些无主之物就是通过暴力抢夺之前所有者的财产——的法律上的继承者。
作者: 彼亦一是非    时间: 2010-3-1 18:03

搬凳子学习
作者: WIND    时间: 2010-3-1 20:55

However, the fact that legal formalism can trace back every title either to arbitrary appropriation or to violent expropriation has no significance whatever for the conditions of a market society. Ownership in the market economy is no longer linked up with the remote origin of private property. Those events in a far-distant past, hidden in the darkness of primitive mankind's history, are no longer of any concern for our day. For in an unhampered market society the consumers daily decide anew who should own and how much he should own. The consumers allot control of the means of production to those who know how to use them best for the satisfaction of the most urgent wants of the consumers. Only in a legal and formalistic sense can the owners be considered the successors of appropriators and expropriators. In fact, they are mandataries of the consumers, bound by the operation of the market to serve the consumers best. Under capitalism, private property is the consummation of the self-determination of the consumers.

然而，法律形式主义能够追溯每一笔财产资格不是来源于任意的占有就是暴力的抢夺这个事实对于市场社会的条件却没有意义。市场经济中的所有权不再与私有财产遥远的起源相连结。那些事件发生在遥远的过去，隐藏在原始人类历史的黑暗之中，对于我们今天已经没有任何关系了。因为在一个不受阻碍的市场社会中，消费者每天都要重新决定谁应该拥有以及他应该拥有多少。消费者将生产手段的控制分配给那些知道如何最好的使用它们的人，用以满足消费者本人最急切的需求。只有在法律和形式主义的意义上，所有者才可被认为是占有者和抢夺者的继承人。实际上，他们是消费者的委托人，通过市场的运作承诺最好的为消费者服务。在资本主义制度下，私有财产是消费者自我决定的实现。
作者: 网事情缘    时间: 2010-3-1 21:52

这部书中文版的一直没看到。
作者: WIND    时间: 2010-3-1 21:57

这部书中文版的一直没看到。
网事情缘 发表于 2010-3-1 21:52
91年夏道平译在台湾出版.网上有.
作者: WIND    时间: 2010-3-1 22:44

The meaning of private property in the market society is radically different from what it is under a system of each household's autarky. Where each household is economically self-sufficient, the privately owned means of production exclusively serve the proprietor. He alone reaps all the benefits derived from their employment. In the market society the proprietors of capital and land can enjoy their property only by employing it for the satisfaction of other people's wants. They must serve the consumers in order to have any advantage from what is their own. The very fact that they own means of production forces them to submit to the wishes of the public. Ownership is an asset only for those who know how to employ it in the best possible way for the benefit of the consumers. It is a social function.

市场社会中的私有财产的含义与每个家庭自我满足系统下的私有财产是根本不同的。后者每个家庭在经济上自我满足，生产手段的私人拥有独占性的服务于所有者。他单独享用从对它们的使用中获得所有利益。在市场社会中资本和土地的所有者只能通过将它们用于满足他人的需求才能享用他的财产。他们必须服务于消费者以从他们自己所拥有的财产中获益。正是他们拥有生产手段的事实强迫他们服从于公众的意愿。所有权只有对那些知道如何为消费者利益使用这些财产的最好途径的人才有用。它是一种社会功能。
作者: 网事情缘    时间: 2010-3-1 22:45

91年夏道平译在台湾出版.网上有.
WIND 发表于 2010-3-1 21:57
谢谢。我看到汉译名著的书目里有这本书的，但书店里一直没看到。等需要的时候再到网上找找，一时还没打算读。
作者: WIND    时间: 2010-3-1 22:47

END.看来从洛克走到米塞斯，中间还有很大的一条河。
作者: WIND    时间: 2010-3-1 23:02

谢谢。我看到汉译名著的书目里有这本书的，但书店里一直没看到。等需要的时候再到网上找找，一时还没打算读。
网事情缘 发表于 2010-3-1 22:45
看这些书也是很头痛的一件事.著作越写越长,我真的很欣赏英美的判例法.如果人类诉诸于文字而获得理性,那么要读的文字越来越多;而判例法的社会中,随着还原案件的方式越来越多,人反而越来越轻松.



欢迎光临 燕谈 (http://www.yantan.us/bbs/) Powered by Discuz! 7.0.0