弗里德曼訪(fǎng)談錄
自由至上：米爾頓·弗里德曼論自由意志論
Taped on February 10, 1999
1999年2月10日錄音
What are the elements of the libertarian movement and how does one of its most illustrious proponents, Milton Friedman, apply its tenets to issues facing the United States today? Milton Friedman, Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences discusses how he balances the libertarians' desire for a small, less intrusive government with environmental, public safety, food and drug administration, and other issues.
自由意志運動(dòng)的基本要義是什么？它最為知名的守護人米爾頓·弗里德曼，如何應用這些信條回應當今美國面臨的現實(shí)問(wèn)題？在下面的訪(fǎng)談中，胡佛研究院的高級研究員和諾貝爾經(jīng)濟學(xué)獎的獲得者米爾頓·弗里德曼談到，作為自由意志論者，如何在“期望政府規模更小、更少管制”與環(huán)境、公共安全、食品和藥品管理及其他問(wèn)題之間尋求平衡。
Guests:
嘉賓：
Milton Friedman
米爾頓·弗里德曼
Milton Friedman, recipient of the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize for economic science, was a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution from 1977 to 2006. He passed away on Nov. 16, 2006. He was also the Paul Snowden Russell Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Chicago, where he taught from 1946 to 1976, and a member of the research staff of the National Bureau of Economic Research from 1937 to 1981.
米爾頓·弗里德曼，1976年諾貝爾經(jīng)濟學(xué)獎的獲得者，1977年至2006年間曾任胡佛研究院高級研究員。弗里德曼于2006年11月16日逝世。1946年至1976年間他執教于芝加哥大學(xué)，獲得保羅·斯諾登·拉塞爾杰出經(jīng)濟學(xué)名譽(yù)教授的稱(chēng)號。1937年至1981年，曾任美國國家經(jīng)濟研究局的研究員。
Transcript:
腳本：
ROBINSON Welcome to Uncommon Knowledge, I'm Peter Robinson. Our show today, libertarianism. Our guest, the Nobel prize winning economist, Milton Friedman. For millions of Americans motorcycles represent freedom, rugged individualism. The pleasures of roaring along the open road while the wind streams through your hair, well it would stream your hair if you didn't have a helmet on. When he gets on his bike every motorcyclist has a choice to make, wear the helmet and achieve greater safety, take the helmet off and have more fun. Every motorcyclist has a choice to make that is except in the more than 20 states, including this state of California, that require the use of the helmet by law. And that's just the kind of issue we'll be talking about with Milton Friedman today. As a libertarian, Dr. Friedman believes in the maximum possible freedom for the individual. Yet he also recognizes the need for certain government functions. Which functions? How does he decide when it is legitimate for the government to take some of our freedom away? Dr. Friedman and I won't be talking about motorcycle helmets, but we will be discussing the larger issues of how a libertarian looks at public safety, protecting the environment, or deciding the right size of government itself. We begin by asking Dr. Friedman just what is a libertarian.
羅賓遜（以下簡(jiǎn)稱(chēng)羅）：歡迎各位收看“非同尋常的知識”（Uncommon Knowledge）節目，我是主持人彼得·羅賓遜。今天我們要談的話(huà)題是自由意志論。我們的嘉賓，是諾貝爾經(jīng)濟學(xué)獎的得主米爾頓·弗里德曼。對于數百萬(wàn)美國人而言，摩托車(chē)象征著(zhù)自由，這是一種粗陋的個(gè)人主義精神。在寬敞的公路上呼嘯而過(guò)，大風(fēng)吹拂著(zhù)你的長(cháng)發(fā)，如果不戴頭盔的話(huà)。每位摩托車(chē)手跨上座騎時(shí)都會(huì )面對以下兩種選擇：戴上頭盔保障安全，丟掉頭盔享受快感。這種情況在包括加州在內的20個(gè)州屬于例外，因為這些地區的法律明文規定，摩托車(chē)手駕駛時(shí)必須帶上頭盔。而這正是我們今天要與弗里德曼博士討論的問(wèn)題。作為一名自由意志論者，弗里德曼博士認為個(gè)體應獲得最大程度的自由。不過(guò)，他也認為確實(shí)需要保留某些政府職能。他說(shuō)的到底是哪些政府職能呢？他如何界定政府在何時(shí)可以合法地剝奪我們的個(gè)人自由？弗里德曼博士和我要探討的不是摩托車(chē)頭盔的問(wèn)題，而是一些更為重大的問(wèn)題，如一名自由意志主義者如何看待公眾安全、保護環(huán)境，以及應如何確定政府自身的規模等問(wèn)題。讓我們開(kāi)始先來(lái)問(wèn)弗里德曼博士這樣一個(gè)問(wèn)題：什么是自由意志論者？
ROBINSON The typical definition of libertarianism in my mind is that a libertarian wants the smallest, least intrusive government consistent with...
羅：在我看來(lái)，自由意志論者的典型定義可以是這樣的，他希望獲得規模最小、干預最少的政府，同時(shí)......
FRIEDMAN Consistent with the maximum freedom for each individual to follow his own ways, his own values, as long as he doesn't interfere with anybody else who's doing the same.
弗里德曼（以下簡(jiǎn)稱(chēng)弗）：對，同時(shí)希望，只要不干預其他個(gè)體追逐自由的權利，每個(gè)個(gè)體獲得最大程度的自由。
ROBINSON Ok, consistent with the maximum freedom of each individual as long as he doesn't interfere with other individuals pursuing their own freedom.
羅：好的，只要不干預其他個(gè)體追逐自由的權利，每個(gè)個(gè)體都可以獲得最大程度的自由。
FRIEDMAN But as a matter of fact there are two really different versions of libertarianism. The more extreme version of libertarianism has one central principle- it is immoral to initiate force on anyone else. That's the prime view, that's the Ayn Rand type of libertarianism.
弗：但事實(shí)上，自由意志論出現了兩個(gè)不同的流派。更為極端的自由意志論只有一個(gè)中心原則，即不作惡。這是它的首要觀(guān)點(diǎn)，也是安·蘭德（Ayn Rand）式的自由意志主義。
ROBINSON So the coercive power of the state is immoral in and of itself...
羅：因此，國家的強制力是不道德的，其自身......
FRIEDMAN Immoral in and of itself..and all you need to know to know that something of the state is immoral is whether it involves the initiation of force. That's one brand, now there's another brand which is one I would be favorable to which you could call consequentialist libertarianism. And it's the one you've just defined.
弗：不道德的，其自身......你要清楚的是，無(wú)論是否動(dòng)用武力，國家都是邪惡的。這是一類(lèi)，現在我們討論另外一類(lèi)，也是我所支持的，你可以稱(chēng)之為因果自由意志論（consequentialist libertarianism），也就是你剛才所定義過(guò)的自由意志論。
ROBINSON Well you've just defined it, but thank you, I'll take the credit. I see the way you work with graduate students...Now, if I may, let me take you through a series questions that are floating around in the modern mind and ask how a libertarian addresses them. Question number one, the environment. Now, it would strike a lot of people living in Manhattan that Central Park is very important to their lives and that if Milton Friedman had his way, it would be turned over to the market and buried under skyscrapers and parking lots within 18 months or however long it takes Donald Trump to put the structures up.
羅：噢，這是你給出的定義，謝謝你，我只是借花獻佛而已。我了解你和學(xué)生們一起合作的方式…… 現在，如果可以的話(huà)，請允許我來(lái)問(wèn)你幾個(gè)問(wèn)題，這些問(wèn)題是現代人非常關(guān)注的，也需要得到自由意志主義者的回應。第一個(gè)問(wèn)題，環(huán)境?，F在，對于生活在曼哈頓的人們來(lái)說(shuō)，中央公園對他們的生活非常重要。如果按照米爾頓·弗里德曼的說(shuō)法，可以把公園交給市場(chǎng)，那么，18個(gè)月內這里將摩天大廈林立，遍布停車(chē)場(chǎng)。至于唐納德·特朗普（Donald Trump）需要多久才能將地基打好，我們且不去管他。
FRIEDMAN It doesn\'t take a governmental agency to maintain the theaters in New York. It doesn\'t take a government agency to maintain the museums, the art museums in New York, the Museum of Modern Art is not a government museum, it's a private. It happens to be there two kinds, there are private-for-profit enterprises and not-for-profit enterprises like the museum, like the opera house and so on. In the same way, if Central Park were not owned by the government, it never would've become the filthy place it became. You forget, what happened to Central Park. We for years, for some years, a long long time ago, lived on Central Park West when we were in New York. [ROBINSON Pretty good address] This was during the war. [ROBINSON Even then it was a very good address.] It wasn't a bad address but it wasn't particularly good. But we were able to take our children down to the park when they were babies and leave them with a teenage sitter and no one was worried about safety. But in more recent years, until the very recent years, Central Park came to be a place where you wouldn't dare to do that, it wasn't safe. That was because it was a government park. The central principle is that nobody takes care of somebody else's property as well as he takes care of his own. If Central Park were privately owned it would be advantageous to provide recreational spaces.
弗：在紐約，根本不需要政府機構出面維持歌劇院的營(yíng)運。紐約的博物館、藝術(shù)博物館同樣如此，現代藝術(shù)博物館就不歸政府所有，而是私人機構。有兩種形式的機構，即私有營(yíng)利性機構和公益性機構，例如博物館、歌劇院等等。按照同樣的方式，如果中央公園不歸政府所有的話(huà)，就永遠不會(huì )變成眼前的垃圾場(chǎng)。你們忘記了中央公園曾經(jīng)的遭遇。許多年前，很久很久以前，當時(shí)我們還住在紐約，我們曾在中央公園以西住了一些年。[羅：真是不錯的地點(diǎn)。] 那是在戰爭期間里。[羅：即便在那時(shí)，也是一處非常宜人的所在。]那里不算差，但也不是特別好。不過(guò)，那時(shí)候我們帶孩子去公園，把他們交給十幾歲大的少年看管，完全不必擔心孩子的安全。但這些年里，尤其是近幾年，中央公園變成了令人不敢停留的場(chǎng)所，它不再安全了。因為它是由政府管理的公園。關(guān)鍵原因在于沒(méi)人會(huì )在意其他人的財產(chǎn)情況，人們只關(guān)心自己的財產(chǎn)。如果中央公園劃歸私有，就有可能變成人們娛樂(lè )消遣的場(chǎng)所。
ROBINSON Now you just touched on something very important because one of the things I\'m trying to distinguish here is the extent to which your libertarianism is effectively a moral position, you do it because it's right and just, it creates the greatest conditions of justice and the extent to which you do it because it works. And it sounds to me as though you have both reasons pretty well wrapped up.
羅：你剛好觸及到了非常重要的話(huà)題，因為我想要區分的一點(diǎn)是，在某種程度上，你所謂的自由意志論實(shí)際上是一種道德境界，你這樣做是因為它是正確且公平的，它創(chuàng )造了最大的公平，而且某種程度上，你這樣做也是因為它切實(shí)可行。對我而言，你有上述兩個(gè)很好的理由。
FRIEDMAN Absolutely, if it didn't work...the main thing is, if it didn't work, it would be an impossible goal. The only reason there's any chance of keeping government limited is because government is so inefficient and does so poorly.
弗：絕對如此。重點(diǎn)在于，如果不可行的話(huà)…… 那就是一個(gè)無(wú)法實(shí)現的目標。我們有機會(huì )將政府的職責限制在一定范圍之內的唯一理由便是，政府的工作效率太低，而且又無(wú)能為力。
ROBINSON During the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century, government in Britain was very limited and economic enterprise went all but unregulated yet that wasn't exactly a golden age now was it?
羅：19世紀工業(yè)革命期間，英國政府的職責極為有限，那時(shí)，所有的商業(yè)企業(yè)均不受管制，那不正是你所說(shuō)的黃金時(shí)代嗎？
GHOST OF CAPITALISM PAST
資金主義幽靈已逝
ROBINSON Again and again you will hear that we've tried, the Western world has already tried laissez-faire, let her rip economics and it ended up with the London that Charles Dickens portrayed "dirty, filthy, child-labor" just a terrible mess. What do you do..how did that come to be?
羅：你不只一次地聽(tīng)到人類(lèi)所作的各種嘗試，西方世界嘗試過(guò)“放任政策”（laissez-faire），任經(jīng)濟自行發(fā)展，最終使倫敦陷入狄更斯筆下“骯臟、丑陋、童工”的困境。你做了事 …… 會(huì )有怎樣的結果呢？
FRIEDMAN It was a terrible mess but what cleaned it up?
弗：那的確是一場(chǎng)可怕的災難，但為了收拾這個(gè)爛攤子，他們做了些什么呢？
ROBINSON Disraeli and his social...the child labor laws...
羅：迪斯累利和他的社會(huì )......童工法......
FRIEDMAN No, no what cleaned it up was the progress of private enterprise because you had a...the reason it was so messy was because you had to burn coal and the kind of coal that was available in Britain was very smokey and messy. And once you were able to use oil, natural gas, better furnaces, all of those things is what it made it possible to clean London up. Now so far as child labor is concerned..what happens is, what happens in the picture that's drawn of Britain in the 19th century is that there's no image of what went before. Of why is it that all these people from the farming, from the rural areas came to the city. Did they come to the city because they thought it would be worse? Or because they thought it would be better? And was it worse or was it better? In the early days, you know there are very few things that are 100% black or 100% white, there are various shades of grey. And what we aim for is the least shade of grey that's possible. I'm not going to say that all was rosy in Britain at the time, it wasn't. But look around the world today. Where is it least rosy? -In those countries where things that are run by the government not in those countries where private enterprises are. And the same thing was true in Britain, the conditions in the rural areas, on the farms, were far worse than conditions in the city, but they were not visible, they were hidden, nobody saw them. [ROBINSON Dickens didn't stroll around the countryside..] Right..
弗里德曼：不，私有企業(yè)的發(fā)展才使這一切結束，因為你有…… 燒煤或者類(lèi)似的燃料，使英國變得煙氣繚繞、臟亂不堪。一旦人們用上石油、天然氣以及更好的爐子，倫敦才重新變得干凈整潔起來(lái)。說(shuō)到童工問(wèn)題…… 19世紀是英國的衰落事情，當時(shí)發(fā)生的，所發(fā)生的事前所未有。為什么農村人會(huì )從鄉下來(lái)到城市？難道他們來(lái)到城市是因為這里的生活更差？還是因為這里的生活更好呢？這里的生活實(shí)際上是更好還是更差呢？早些時(shí)候，很少有非黑即白的情況，很多事情都是不好不壞。而我們的目標則是讓事情盡可能不那么糟糕。我并不是在說(shuō)那時(shí)候的英國一切都很美好，事實(shí)上也并非如此。但看看當今世界，哪里的情況最糟？是那些政府掌管的國家，而非私營(yíng)企業(yè)主導的國家。正如當時(shí)的英國，鄉下、農場(chǎng)的條件遠遠不如城市。但這些都是不可見(jiàn)的，被隱藏起來(lái)了，沒(méi)人注意到。[羅：狄更斯也沒(méi)到鄉下去走一圈兒......]沒(méi)錯。
ROBINSON So what you're saying then is that this mental image that drives even to this day so much of the environmental debate is simply, it may be true as far it goes, but you\'d advise greater historical understanding.
羅：你的見(jiàn)解是：這種精神意象推動(dòng)世界平衡地發(fā)展至今，大多數環(huán)境爭議看來(lái)很簡(jiǎn)單，至少到目前為止是這樣。但你建議人們更深刻地理解歷史。
FRIEDMAN But not only historical, present. Where are the most polluted areas in the world? [ROBINSON Today.] Today. In Russia! [ROBINSON Russia? Right.] Why? Because everything in Russia was controlled by the government. There were no, and I keep emphasizing, nobody's going to take care of somebody else's property as well as they'll take care of his own.
弗：不僅僅是歷史，還包括現在。世界上污染最嚴重的地區在哪里？[羅：現在]。對，就是現在。是俄羅斯！[羅：俄羅斯？對。]為什么呢？因為俄羅斯的政府控制著(zhù)一切事物。正如我一直在強調的，沒(méi)有人會(huì )像在意自己的財產(chǎn)那樣照看他人的財產(chǎn)。
ROBINSON But who should take care of the resources that we all share, such as the air we breath?
羅：但誰(shuí)應該看護我們所有人的共有資源？比如說(shuō)我們呼吸著(zhù)的空氣？
BREATHING LESSONS
空氣的例子
ROBINSON I want to push you one more time on the environment- air. Here in California it turns out there are 30 million people who like to breath. And we have, particularly in the L.A. basin, smog beginning in the 1970's that the environmental movement begins to...
羅：我想再一次追問(wèn)環(huán)境的問(wèn)題，即空氣這個(gè)話(huà)題。在加州共有3000萬(wàn)人口呼吸空氣，尤其是在洛杉磯盆地，從1970年代開(kāi)始冒出了一些煙霧，于是開(kāi)始出現環(huán)保運動(dòng)......
FRIEDMAN Oh no, the smog went back 200 years. There are stories of the Indians describing that as a smoggy area.
弗：不對，煙霧的歷史可以追溯到200年前。印地安人曾講述過(guò)關(guān)于煙霧的故事。
ROBINSON So part of what's going on is it's natural.
羅：因此，這種事情部分而言是很自然的。
FRIEDMAN But no doubt, the thing about that is there is an argument for government requiring those who impose costs on third parties to pay for them. And the point is with respect to smog, the efficient way to do it is to use the market.
弗：但無(wú)疑，關(guān)于政府是否要求第三方賠付，人們存在著(zhù)爭議。事情的關(guān)鍵在于煙霧，有效的解決途徑仍然是通過(guò)市場(chǎng)。
ROBINSON How do you create property rights in the air, say?
羅：你怎么可以創(chuàng )造出空氣的產(chǎn)權呢？
FRIEDMAN When you do it now, by selling the right to emit a certain amount of pollutants into the air. You now have a market in effluent rights.
弗：在具體實(shí)施上，可以向人們向空氣中排出污染物的權利?，F在就有出售排泄污染物權利的市場(chǎng)。
ROBINSON For large manufacturing concerns..
羅：那是大型制造業(yè)應關(guān)注的問(wèn)題。
FRIEDMAN For manufacturing concerns, which is where most of it comes from. And you do the same by charging essentially making it requirement that automobiles have to have [ROBINSON The catalytic convertors] Catalytic convertors and that's effectively making individuals be responsible for costs they impose others. Remember what I said is- the key feature of a libertarian view is that you should be free to do what you want provided you don't prevent other people from doing the same thing. And so the only case for government is when it is not feasible for market arrangements to make individuals pay, to compensate others for any harm they impose on them. If you and I enter into an agreement to buy or sell something, well that's our business. You may lose, I may lose , or more likely we're both going to win. We\'re not going to enter into it unless both of us think it's better for us. But there are cases like the power plant that emits smoke that dirties my shirt in which the company is imposing a cost on me for which I'm not being compensated. Those are the only cases, but you have to qualify that by noting that when government enters in, it also is emitting smoke, it\'s also imposing cost on third parties because it's always a very imperfect arrangement and moreover it always has to collect taxes and the process of collecting taxes is, as I always say, there's a smokestack on the back of every government program.
弗：大型制造業(yè)是污染物的重要來(lái)源?？梢韵裆厦嬲f(shuō)的那樣如法炮制，向汽車(chē)排放這類(lèi)行為收費，形成一種需求。[羅：催化轉化器]催化轉化器，就是有效地讓個(gè)體對其強加給別人的成本負責。還記得我說(shuō)過(guò)的嗎？自由意志論者的主要特征是自由地做你想做的事，前提是不要妨礙其他人做同樣的事。政府的唯一職責便是，當市場(chǎng)無(wú)法順利要求個(gè)人支付對他人的傷害時(shí)，政府可強制實(shí)施。如果你我達成了一個(gè)買(mǎi)賣(mài)協(xié)議，那是我們之間的交易。你我都有可能蒙受損失，當然也有可能雙贏(yíng)。如果買(mǎi)賣(mài)雙方不認為對自己有利，就不會(huì )展開(kāi)合作。但還有其他的情況，例如發(fā)電廠(chǎng)排出的煙霧弄臟了我的襯衫，這種情況下，該公司將被強制賠償我的損失。這是唯一的情況，但必須注意到，當政府介入此事，政府必須發(fā)對排放，并強制第三方賠付，因為情況總是不好的。此外，政府還必須征稅，就像我一直所講的，在每項政府計劃背后都有一個(gè)大煙囪。
ROBINSON A smoke stack on the back of every government program- by that you mean, a distortion in the marketplace..
羅：你的意思是，政府計劃背后的大煙囪導致了市場(chǎng)的扭曲？
FRIEDMAN Right, imposing a cost on third parties for which the third parties are not compensated.
弗：沒(méi)錯，將成本強加給第三方，而他們并未因此得到補償。
ROBINSON And so the key characteristic in which you find a circumstance where it's legitimate for the government to intervene would typically be where property rights are vague or diffuse, is that correct?
羅：因此，關(guān)鍵之處在于，你發(fā)現了這樣一種境況，在政府得以合法介入的領(lǐng)域，產(chǎn)權是模糊或者分散的，我說(shuō)得對嗎？
FRIEDMAN And where it's almost impossible to make them precise. That is a problem in the case of the power plant is that there is no way in which you can say you have to get the agreement of each of the persons whose shirt your going to dirty and pay him for the privilege of dirtying their shirt before you can do it.
弗：并且在這個(gè)領(lǐng)域中幾乎不可能求得精確的計算。這產(chǎn)生了一個(gè)問(wèn)題，即發(fā)電廠(chǎng)無(wú)法與每一個(gè)襯衫被弄臟的人都簽定協(xié)議，而且，在出現事情之前發(fā)電廠(chǎng)也不能為此付錢(qián)，從而獲得弄臟別人襯衫的特權。羅：因此，涉及到環(huán)境問(wèn)題時(shí)，環(huán)保主義者的工作確實(shí)是有意義的，如果在這一領(lǐng)域出現極端事件……弗：但只要你觀(guān)察一番，在實(shí)際中的大多數情況下，一些世界和平研究中心（PERC）的專(zhuān)家，例如特里·安德森(Terry Anderson)（我想他肯定在你的采訪(fǎng)計劃中），已經(jīng)證明，很多情況下，市場(chǎng)規劃遠比命令和控制管理有效得多。
羅：但在一些特定領(lǐng)域，如食品和藥物等涉及公眾安全的領(lǐng)域，只有通過(guò)政府才能獲得保證，不是嗎？
DRUG-STALL COWBOYS ROBINSON The Food and Drug Administration which regulates everything from the drugs that pharmaceutical companies may put on the market to the ingredients in items we purchase off the grocery store shelves. Let me give you an example- Thalidomide [FRIEDMAN Everybody's favorite example...] Well I may be leading with my chin on this one but I'm going to lead with it anyway. 50's and 60's it is marketed in Europe as a drug to help women get through the nausea that they sometimes experience during pregnancy. The Food and Drug Administration said it had been inadequately tested in the United States and forbade it to be marketed in this country with the result that thousands of children were born with horrible birth defects in Europe to mothers who had used Thalidomide but that didn't happen to American children, because the FDA had intervened and kept that drug off the market. Thank god for the FDA, right?
藥房失速牛仔
羅：從制藥公司可能投放市場(chǎng)的藥品，到雜貨店貨架上商品的成分，食品和藥品管理局無(wú)所不管。舉個(gè)例子，鎮靜劑薩立多胺（Thalidomide）[弗：每個(gè)人都感興趣的例子……]好吧，或許我舉這個(gè)例子不太恰當，但不管怎么說(shuō)我還是打算說(shuō)這個(gè)例子了。50年代和60年代，薩立多胺在歐洲被標榜為抑制婦女懷孕期惡心的藥物。食品和藥品管理局認為，該藥在美國未能通過(guò)所有測試，禁止其在美國出售，而在歐洲，由于母親服用薩立多胺，導致數千名新生兒出現可怕的先天缺陷。因為食品和藥品管理局阻止了該藥銷(xiāo)售，這種事情沒(méi)有發(fā)生在美國兒童身上。感謝上帝，感謝食品和藥品管理局，對吧？
FRIEDMAN Wrong [ROBINSON Alright, why?] this is a case in which they did save lives, this was a good case, but suppose they are equally slow in adopting a drug which turns out to be very good and beneficial. How would you ever see the lives that are lost because of that? You're an FDA official, you have a question of whether to approve or disapprove a new drug. If you approve it and it turns out to be a bad drug like Thalidomide, you're in the soup, your name is going to be on every front page [ROBINSON cost me my job, I get hauled up to Congress to testify..] right. On the other hand if you disapprove it, but it turns out to be good, well then later on you approve it four or five years later, nobody's going to complain about the fact that you didn't approve it earlier except those greedy pharmaceutical companies that want make profits at the expense of the public, as everybody will say. So the result is that the pressure on the FDA is always to be late in approving. And there's enormous evidence that they have caused more deaths by late approvals than they have saved by early approval.
弗：錯！[羅：好吧，那是為什么呢？]在這個(gè)事件中，食品和藥品管理局拯救了生命，是正面的案例。但設想一下，如果有一種藥非常好，食品和藥品管理局批準的速度與這件事的處理速度一樣慢，那怎么辦？你曾看到過(guò)因此而丟掉性命的事情吧。假設你是一名食品和藥品管理局的官員，你負責批準一種新藥是否能夠銷(xiāo)售。如果你批準了，結果該藥像薩立多胺一樣是一種不好的藥，那你就惹大麻煩了，你的名字將出現在所有報紙頭條。[羅：我會(huì )丟了工作，并被傳召到國會(huì )聽(tīng)證……]沒(méi)錯。另一種可能是你沒(méi)有批準一種好藥上市，直到四五年后你才批準，除了那些想從公眾身上獲取利潤的貪婪的制藥公司（每個(gè)人都這么說(shuō)）之外，沒(méi)人會(huì )因為你批準晚了而抱怨。結果是迫使食品和藥品管理局總是批準的很遲。有足夠證據顯示，食品和藥品管理局因遲緩批準而導致死亡的人數比因此獲救的人數要多得多。
ROBINSON So your view is abolish the FDA..
羅：所以你認為應該撤銷(xiāo)食品和藥品管理局了……
FRIEDMAN Absolutely [ROBINSON And what comes up in its place?] what comes up? It's in the self-interest of pharmaceutical companies not to have these bad things. Do you think the manufacturer of Thalidomide made a profit out of Thalidomide or lost? [ROBINSON I see, ok.] And you have to have..people should be responsible for harm that they do. It should've been possible...[ROBINSON So tort law takes care of a lot of this.] Absolutely, absolutely..
弗：當然。[羅：此后由誰(shuí)來(lái)代替呢？]能有什么事發(fā)生？不做壞事符合制藥公司的自身利益。你覺(jué)得制造薩立多胺的廠(chǎng)商是從中受益了，還是受損了？[羅：好的，我明白了。]做壞事的人必須為他的所作所為承擔后果。這可能已經(jīng)發(fā)生了……[羅：這種行為大多會(huì )受到侵權法的懲治]當然，絕對沒(méi)錯。
ROBINSON Alright, if Lilly or Merck comes up with a drug that does me harm, I go after them, I join a class action with everybody else who's taken that pill and we sue them for billions of dollars and wipe out their share holders equity. Seeing that, they have every interest to be extremely rigorous in testing that drug before they make it available.
羅：好，如果禮來(lái)和默克公司生產(chǎn)的藥物損害到我，我就同其他受到傷害的人一起提出集體訴訟，控告制藥廠(chǎng)商，讓他們賠付數十億美元，并毀掉他們股東持有的公司股票。有鑒于此，在把藥品投放市場(chǎng)以前，要對藥品進(jìn)行嚴格的測試，制藥廠(chǎng)商無(wú)不對此非常關(guān)心。
FRIEDMAN Let me give you a different example. The rules imposed on airlines, for safety. Who has the most interest in preventing airline accidents.
弗：我給你一個(gè)不同的例子。航空公司的安全強制規定。誰(shuí)與防止飛行意外關(guān)系最大？ 協(xié)作
羅：除了乘客自身，就是航空公司了。
弗：乘客不見(jiàn)得要比航空公司承擔更大的責任，因為乘客中也包括飛行員。[羅：是的，當然了。] 政府為什么要提高航空安全？他們要怎么做呢？他們如何能為所有人增加補貼，以改善航空安全呢？
羅：米爾頓·弗里德曼真的反對所有健康和安全監管嗎？讓我來(lái)試探他一下：公眾有權了解自己購買(mǎi)的食物的營(yíng)養成分嗎？ 私有標簽
羅：在我們國家肥胖是個(gè)很大的問(wèn)題。[弗：的確如此……] 但直到近幾年，減肥者在雜貨店拿起一包食品，想要弄清成分、碳水化合物含量、熱量、脂肪等等，都很難做到。所以，政府制定了一些相當溫和的規定，要求在雜貨店出售的產(chǎn)品包裝上提供營(yíng)養成分表?，F在你能知道這個(gè)的脂肪含量高，那個(gè)脂肪少，我買(mǎi)這個(gè)。這難道不是溫和的、完全被公眾接受的政府干預嗎？
弗：現在，讓我們繼續…… 政府還可以阻止有用信息的傳播。我來(lái)給你舉個(gè)最簡(jiǎn)單的例子 —— 阿司匹林，你我都知道，每隔一天服用一片阿司匹林，可減少心臟病發(fā)作的危險。但是，這一條不允許出現在阿司匹林的包裝上。[羅：是因為……] 食品和藥品管理局（FDA）禁止這樣做，標簽內容信息由他們控制。目前，一些有自由派傾向的藥品制造商提議，試圖推動(dòng)FDA同意他們將這個(gè)信息放在產(chǎn)品上，FDA的答復跟我們的回答一樣：你可以選擇。FDA不允許他們這樣做。因此，如果顧客確實(shí)想知道產(chǎn)品成分，他們可以自主決定把它印在包裝上。包裝上印有成分表的產(chǎn)品可能比沒(méi)有成分表的更能吸引顧客。但現在，我始終覺(jué)得困惑，那些華盛頓辦公室里的專(zhuān)家們既不認識你、不認識我，也不認識我們的孩子，為什么他們卻比你我更清楚我們想要怎樣的包裝，以及我們的孩子想知道什么信息。
羅：再一次，權衡一下，撤銷(xiāo)FDA。撤銷(xiāo)政府監管嗎？
弗：當然。最初對FDA的要求是保證被批準藥物的安全性，而非療效。借助薩立多胺丑聞通過(guò)了凱弗維爾（Keith Elver）修正案，將FDA的權限擴大，必須同時(shí)確保藥品的安全和療效，這就使得藥品批準成本大大增加。如果你想折中一下，可以采用之前的標準，那么，FDA只保證藥物是安全的，而不對藥效做出判斷。
羅：食品及藥物管理局只是確保醫藥公司達到舊聲明的標準，首先是不造成傷害。這種藥也許不能改變你的生活，但也不會(huì )傷害你，那么，它就是可以上市銷(xiāo)售的。好吧，現在我來(lái)談?wù)劻硪粋€(gè)案例，這個(gè)案例我認為對于米爾頓的自由意志論極具挑戰性。好嗎？如果你愿意的話(huà)，可以在我給你一擊之前做個(gè)深呼吸：公民權。
弗：你所說(shuō)的公民權是指……？
羅：我所謂的公民權，舉例來(lái)說(shuō)，是指20世紀50年代南部的杰姆·克勞法案。
弗：但那是一個(gè)政府干預過(guò)多的例子。[羅：是嗎？但我認為那一時(shí)期的南部，稅率相對較低，政府管制也相對較少……]不，并非如此，但政府的確實(shí)行了隔離。政府強制隔離出白人區與黑人區，同時(shí)，法令強制黑人只能坐在公交車(chē)的后座。這些都是政府法令！
羅：你的意思是，如果沒(méi)有政府的法令，這些情況就不會(huì )發(fā)生了？
弗：如果沒(méi)有政府的法令，也許這些將會(huì )是個(gè)循序漸進(jìn)的過(guò)程。而且，只會(huì )發(fā)生在一些地方，而不是隨處可見(jiàn)?？匆幌聸](méi)有這些法律的北部就知道了。別誤會(huì )我，那里也有歧視，這是毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)的，對不同人種無(wú)疑也會(huì )有些負面影響，但是，沒(méi)有南部的法令，這一切會(huì )瓦解得更迅速、更容易。如果非要為自由意志論引證舉例的話(huà)，這就是最好的例子。
羅：米爾頓·弗里德曼告訴我們，為什么要對政府在我們生活中的作用加以限制，那么，如何限制呢？現在，我們就來(lái)探討聯(lián)邦政府本身的結構。
內閣重組
ROBINSON I have a list here of the 14 cabinet departments, now 14 is a lot for television so I want to just to go right down the list quickly and have you give me a thumbs up or thumbs down, keep them or abolish them? Department of Agriculture?
羅：我這里有14個(gè)政府部門(mén)的列表，14個(gè)部門(mén)一一詳述過(guò)于繁多，所以我只簡(jiǎn)述它們的名字，你來(lái)投贊成或反對票，來(lái)表示是保留還是撤消這些部門(mén)好嗎？農業(yè)部？
FRIEDMAN Abolish.
弗：撤消。
ROBINSON Gone. Department of Commerce?
羅：商務(wù)部？
FRIEDMAN Abolish.
弗：撤消。
ROBINSON Gone. Department of Defense?
羅：國防部？
FRIEDMAN Keep.
弗：保留。
ROBINSON Keep it? Department of Education?
羅：保留國防部？那教育部呢？
FRIEDMAN Abolish.
弗： 撤消。
ROBINSON Gone. Energy?
羅： 能源部？
FRIEDMAN Abolish. Except that energy ties in with military.
弗：撤消。除了與軍事職能相關(guān)的部門(mén)。
ROBINSON Well then we shove it under defense, the little bit that handles the nuclear, plutonium and so forth goes under Defense but we abolish the rest of it. Health and Human Services?
羅：那么，我們出于防御目的對此進(jìn)行精簡(jiǎn)，保留與核能、 钚等相關(guān)部份，并移交國防部，其余全部撤銷(xiāo)。那衛生與公共服務(wù)部門(mén)呢？
FRIEDMAN There is room for some public health activities to prevent contagion, such a thing as for example..
弗：應當為預防傳染等公共衛生活動(dòng)預留空間，例如……
ROBINSON So you keep the National Institute of Health say and Center for Disease Control..
羅： 所以，你認為應當保留國家衛生研究所，以及疾病預防控制中心？
FRIEDMAN No, no, no those are mostly research agencies..No, no that's a question of whether the government should be involved in financing research.
弗： 不，不，不是保留那些研究機構。國家是否應當參與金融研究是一個(gè)值得探討的問(wèn)題。
ROBINSON And the answer is no?
FRIEDMAN Well that's a very complicated issue and it's not an easy answer with respect to that.
羅：那答案是否定的？
弗：這個(gè)問(wèn)題非常復雜，難以簡(jiǎn)單作答。
ROBINSON We'll eliminate half of the Department of Health and Human Services?
羅： 我們要把衛生與公眾服務(wù)部砍掉一半嗎？
FRIEDMAN Yes, something like that..
弗：是的，差不多。
ROBINSON OK one half. Housing and Urban Development?
羅：好，問(wèn)到一半了。住房和城市發(fā)展部？
FRIEDMAN No.
弗： 不保留。
ROBINSON Didn't even pause over that one..Department of the Interior?
羅：甚至都不考慮一下就……內政部？
FRIEDMAN Oh but Housing and Urban Development has done a enormous amount of harm. My god, if you think of the way in which they've destroyed parts of cities under the rubric of eliminating slums. You remember Martin Anderson wrote a book on the federal bulldozer describing the effect of the urban development. There've been many more dwelling units torn down in the name of public housing than have been built.
弗： 哦，但是住房和城市發(fā)展部已經(jīng)做了一大堆錯事了。我的天哪，只要想想他們?yōu)橄毭窨?、破壞城市的做法吧。你記得馬丁·安德森在那本關(guān)于聯(lián)邦推土機的書(shū) 中，如何描述城市發(fā)展效應的嗎？以建造公共住房為名，他們拆遷的房屋遠遠多于建造的房屋。
ROBINSON Jack Kemp has proposed selling to the current inhabitants of public housing their unit- their townhouse, their apartment for a dollar apiece and just shifting the ownership to the people who live..
羅：杰克·坎普 （Jack Kemp）建議將現有居民所住的公共住房屋單元，包括聯(lián)體別墅及公寓，以象征性的一美元價(jià)格賣(mài)給當下的住戶(hù)，并將產(chǎn)權從供應房屋的名義過(guò)渡到所有人名下。
FRIEDMAN If you got rid of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, it would be worth doing that.
弗： 如果撤掉住房和城市發(fā)展部，這么做是值得的。
ROBINSON Alright, done. That's gone. Department of the Interior, your beloved national park service?
羅：好吧，回答完 畢。繼續。內政部，你所鐘愛(ài)的國家公園管理局呢？
FRIEDMAN Well, given the problem there is you first have to sell off all the land that the government owns but that's what you should do.. [ROBINSON But it could be done pretty quickly..] It could be done, you should do that, there's no reason for the government to own...the government now owns something like 1/3 of all the land in the country.
弗：如果你的問(wèn)題是將政府的土地全部賣(mài)掉，那么，理當如此……[羅：應 該很快就能賣(mài)掉……] 可以這么做，也應該這么做，政府擁有國家三分之一的土地，本來(lái)就毫無(wú)道理。
ROBINSON And that's too much, should go down to zero.
羅：的確很過(guò)分， 應該統統還地于民。
FRIEDMAN Should go down, well not entirely zero. They ought to own the land on which government buildings are on.
弗：應該還，不過(guò)不是全部，政府應該保有政府建筑物所在土地的所有權。
ROBINSON Ok, terrific. Department of Justice?
羅：好，棒極了。那司法部呢？
FRIEDMAN Oh yes, keep that one.
弗：哦，這個(gè)可以有。
ROBINSON Labor?
羅： 勞工部
FRIEDMAN No.
弗：不需要。
ROBINSON Gone. State?
FRIEDMAN Keep.
羅：州政府？
弗： 保留
ROBINSON Keep it. Transportation?
羅：保留州政府。那交通部呢？
FRIEDMAN Gone.
弗： 撤銷(xiāo)。
ROBINSON Gone. The Treasury?
羅：撤銷(xiāo)。財政部？
FRIEDMAN You have to keep it to collect taxes.
弗： 為了收稅，你不得不保留它。
ROBINSON Alright collect taxes through the Treasury. Veteran's Affairs?
羅：通過(guò)財政部收稅，好。退伍軍人事務(wù)部？
FRIEDMAN You can regard the Veteran Affairs as a way of paying essentially salaries for services of those who've been in the armed forces but you ought to be able to get rid of it. [ROBINSON Pay it off?] Pay it off.
弗：你可以將退伍軍人事務(wù)部看做為退伍軍人支付基本工資的服務(wù)部門(mén)， 但你應該不需要它。[羅：算是補償？]算是補償。
ROBINSON Pay off lump sums perhaps, and just get rid of it. OK Milton Friedman, if you are made dictator for one day, the next day..
羅：或許應該一次性補償，然后撤銷(xiāo)這個(gè)機構。好吧，米爾頓·弗里德曼， 如果有朝一日你做了獨裁者，接下來(lái)……
FRIEDMAN No, no I don't want to be made dictator. I don't believe in dictators. I believe we want to bring about change by the agreement for the citizens, I don't believe in...If we can't persuade the public that it's desirable to do these things, we have no right to impose them even if we have the power to do it.
弗：不，不，我不要做獨裁者。我不主張獨裁。我認為我們需要在公民們的支 持下改變，我不主張……如果我們無(wú)法說(shuō)服公眾去做這些值得做的事情，那我們即便能夠武力脅迫，也無(wú)權強制他們去做。
ROBINSON From 14 departments down to 4 ½ .
羅： 把14個(gè)政府部門(mén)精簡(jiǎn)到4個(gè)半。
FRIEDMAN Basic fundamental functions, what are its fundamental functions? To preserve the peace, defend the country, provide a mechanism whereby individuals can adjudicate their disputes, that's the Justice Department, protect individuals from being coerced by other individuals, the policing function, and now this is both the central government and the state and local government. The police function is primarily local and central. And those are the fundamental functions of government in my opinion.
弗： 保持最基本的職能，什么是政府的基本職能？為維護和平、保衛國家，提供一套允許個(gè)人體處理爭端的機制，這是司法部的職能；保護個(gè)人免受他人脅迫，維護治安，這是中央政府、州政府、地方政府的作用。警察治安職能是地方和中央首要的職能。在我看來(lái)，這些才是政府的基本職能。
ROBINSON Milton Friedman, thank you very much.
羅：米爾頓·弗里德曼，非常感謝您。
Dr. Friedman believes in limited government, very limited government. If I understand his principles correctly, he'd say that the choice whether to wear motorcycle helmet shouldn't be between me and the State government in Sacramento but between me and if anyone and my insurance company. Better keep those premiums down...I'm Peter Robinson, thanks for joining us.
弗里德曼博士主張限制政府，而且要嚴格限制。如果我對他的信條理解正確的話(huà)，他認為，騎摩托車(chē)要不要帶頭盔與位于薩克拉門(mén)所的州立政府毫無(wú)關(guān)系，只與我的保險公司有關(guān)。保費最好能下降……我是彼得·羅賓遜，謝謝觀(guān)看。
聯(lián)系客服
