《私有财产的伦理学和经济学》第二部分

汉斯-赫尔曼·霍普（Hans-Hermann Hoppe）的著作《The Ethics and Economics of Private Property》（私有财产的伦理学和经济学），简单整理了中英文对照版。王文玉译，2006-9-16。

---

IV. The Economics of Private Property 私有财产经济学

The idea of private property not only agrees with our moral intuitions and is the sole just solution to the problem of social order; the institution of private property is also the basis of economic prosperity and of "social welfare." As long as people act in accordance with the rules underlying the institution of private property, social welfare is optimized.

私有财产的这个概念不仅符合我们的道德直觉，而且是社会秩序问题惟一的正确解决办法。私有财产制度也是经济繁荣和“社会福利”的基础。只要人们依照私有财产制度的准则采取行动，社会福利就会最大化。

Every act of original appropriation improves the welfare of the appropriator (at least ex ante); otherwise, it would not be performed. At the same time, no one is made worse off by this act. Any other individual could have appropriated the same goods and territories if only he had recognized them as scarce, and hence, valuable. However, since no other individual made such an appropriation, no one else can have suffered a welfare loss on account of the original appropriation. Hence, the so-called Pareto-criterion (that it is scientifically legitimate to speak of an improvement of "social welfare" only if a particular change increases the individual welfare of at least one person and leaves no one else worse off) is fulfilled. An act of original appropriation meets this requirement. It enhances the welfare of one person, the appropriator, without diminishing anyone else’s physical wealth (property). Everyone else has the same quantity of property as before and the appropriator has gained new, previously non-existent property. In so far, an act of original appropriation always increases social welfare.

每个最先占有行为都增进行为者的福利（至少事先认为如此）。不然的话，这个行为就不会得到履行。与此同时，没有人因此而受到伤害。其他人本来也可以最先占有同样的物品和领土，如果他们也曾认识到这些物品和领土的稀缺性和价值。然而，由于尚且没有其他个人将其据为己有，也就没有人因为最先行为而遭受福利损失。因此，所谓的帕累托准则（即“社会福利”增进的科学而合理的说法：某一具体变化增加某个人的个人福利，同时不减少其他任何人的个人福利）得到满足。最先占有行为就满足这一条件。它增进一个人的福利，即最先占有者的福利，同时又不减少其他任何人的有形财富（财产）。其他人和以前一样拥有相同数量的财产，而且最先占有者得到了新的财产，即原先不存在的财产。就此而言，最先占有行为总是增加社会福利。

Any further action with originally appropriated goods and territories enhances social welfare, for no matter what a person does with his property, it is done to increase his welfare. This is the case when he consumes his property as well as when he produces new property out of "nature." Every act of production is motivated by the producer's desire to transform a less valuable entity into a more valuable one. As long as acts of consumption and production do not lead to the physical damage or diminution of property owned by others, they are regarded as enhancing social welfare.

用最先占有的物品和领土进行的进一步行为也增加社会福利。这是因为，无论一个人用自己的财产做什么，其目的总是增加他自己的福利。当他消费自己的财产和借助“自然”生产出新的财产时，他的福利增加。每个生产活动背后的动机总是生产者把不那么有价值的物品变成更有价值的物品。只要消费和生产行为不给他人拥有的财产造成有形损坏或减少，它们就是增进社会福利的行为。

Finally, every voluntary exchange (transfer) of appropriated or produced property from one owner to another increases social welfare. An exchange of property is only possible if both owners prefer what they acquire over what they surrender and thus expect to benefit from the exchange. Two persons gain in welfare from every exchange of property, and the property under the control of everyone else is unchanged.

最后，最先占有或生产出来的财产从一个所有者到另一个所有者的转让增加社会福利。财产交换之所以会发生，惟一的原因是交易双方都认为从交换中得到的物品比失去的物品更好，都期望从交换中获利。每次交换都使交换双方获利，而其他人支配下的财产没有被改变。

In distinct contrast, any deviation from the institution of private property must lead to social welfare losses.

与此截然不同，背离私有财产权制度必然导致社会福利损失。

In the case of universal and equal co-ownership—universal communism instead of private property—the price to be paid would be mankind's instant death because universal co-ownership would mean that no one would be allowed to do anything or move anywhere. Each actual deviation from a private property order would represent a system of unequal domination and hegemony. That is, it would be an order in which one person or group—the rulers, exploiters or Uebermenschen—would be permitted to acquire property other than by original appropriation, production or exchange, while another person or group—the ruled, exploited or Untermenschen—would be prohibited from doing likewise. While hegemony is possible, it would involve social welfare losses and would lead to relative impoverishment.

在普遍和均等的共同所有权 — 普遍共产主义而非私有财产权—的情况下，要付出的代价是人类的立即灭亡。这是因为，普遍共同所有意味着，没有人有权做任何事情或移动到任何地方。现实中对私有财产秩序的每一种偏离都代表着一个不平等的统治和霸权制度。也就是说，它会是这样一种秩序，其中，允许一个人或阶层—统治者、剥削者或上等人—不经最先占有、生产或交换行为而获得财产，不允许另一个人或阶层—被统治者、被剥削者或下等人—做类似的事情。霸权是可能的，但社会福利将会遭受损失，并会导致相对贫困。

If A is permitted to acquire a good or territory which B has appropriated as indicated by visible signs, the welfare of A is increased at the expense of a corresponding welfare loss on the part of B. The Pareto criterion is not fulfilled, and social welfare is sub-optimal. The same is true with other forms of hegemonic rule. If A prohibits B from originally appropriating a hitherto unowned piece of nature; if A may acquire goods produced by B without B's consent; if A may proscribe what B is permitted to do with his appropriated or produced goods (apart from the requirement that one is not permitted to physically damage or diminish others' property)—in each case there is a "winner," A, and a "loser," B. In every case, A increases his supply of property at the expense of B’s corresponding loss of property. In no case is the Pareto criterion fulfilled, and a sub-optimal level of social welfare always results.

如果允许A获得B用明显标记指明占有的物品或领土，那么，A的福利增加的代价是B的福利相应减少。帕累托准则没有得到满足，且社会福利没有最大化。这一点对于其他形式的霸权统治也是正确的。如果A禁止B最先占有一块尚未被占有的土地；如果A可以获取B生产的东西而不经B同意；如果A可以禁止B利用自己占有或生产（一个人不允许有形地损坏或减少他人的财产这个要求除外）的物品，那么，在上述每一种情况中，都有一个“赢家”A，和一个“输家”B。在每一种情况下，A的财产增加，与之相应的是B的财产损失。没有一种情况满足帕累托准则，结果总是社会福利没有最大化。

Moreover, hegemony and exploitation lead to a reduced level of future production. Every ruling which grants non-appropriators, non-producers and non-traders control, either partial or full, over appropriated, produced or traded goods, leads necessarily to a reduction of future acts of original appropriation, production and mutually beneficial trade. For the person performing them, each of these activities is associated with certain costs, and the costs of performing them increases under a hegemonic system and those of not performing them decreases. Present consumption and leisure become more attractive as compared to production (future consumption), and the level of production will fall below what it otherwise would have been. As for the rulers, the fact that they can increase their wealth by expropriating property appropriated, produced or contractually acquired by others will lead to a wasteful usage of the property at its disposal. Because they are permitted to supplement their future wealth by means of expropriation (taxes), present-orientation and consumption (high time preference) is encouraged, and insofar as they use their goods "productively" at all, the likelihood of misallocations, miscalculation, and economic loss is systematically increased.

此外，霸权和剥削还导致未来生产减少。准许一些人霸占把另一些最先占有、生产和交换得来的物品，必定减少未来的最先占有、生产和互利交换活动。对于从事这些活动的人来说，这些活动中的每一个都有一定的成本，而且在霸权统治制度下，从事这些活动的成本增加，不从事它们的成本减少。与生产（未来消费）相比，现在消费和休闲变得更具吸引力，生产水平将低于应有的水平。至于统治者，由于他们能够通过没收他人最先占有、生产或交换得来的财产来增加他们的财富，他们不珍惜财产的使用。这是因为，他们可以通过征用（征税）来补充他们的未来财富，这将鼓励短期行为和消费（较强的时间偏好），就物品在生产中的利用来说，资源配置扭曲、错误的计算和经济损失发生的可能性就会有系统地增加。

V. The Classic Pedigree 古典渊源

As noted at the outset, the ethics and economics of private property presented above does not claim originality. Rather, it is a modern expression of a "classic" tradition, going back to beginnings in Aristotle, Roman law, Aquinas, the late Spanish Scholastics, Grotius and Locke.⁶

正如本文开始指出的那样，上面介绍的私有财产伦理学和经济学并不是新奇的东西，它只不过是一个“古典”传统的现代表述。这一传统可追溯到早期的亚里士多德、罗马法、阿奎奈和后来的西班牙经院哲学家、格劳秀斯（Grotius）和洛克。⁶

In contrast to the communist utopia of Plato's Republic, Aristotle provides a comprehensive list of the comparative advantages of private property in Politics. First, private property is more productive. "What is common to the greatest number gets the least amount of care. Men pay most attention to what is their own; they care less for what is common; or at any rate they care for it only to the extent to which each is individually concerned. Even when there is no other cause for inattention, men are more prone to neglect their duty when they think that another is attending to it."⁷

与柏拉图的共产主义乌托邦《共和政体》相比，亚里士多德在《政治学》中全面列举了私有财产制度的比较优势。第一，私有财产更具生产力。“最多数人公有的东西最少得到爱护。人们最爱护自己拥有的东西。他们较少爱护公有的东西，或者他们关心它的程度仅仅限于与个人利益有关的范围。即使没有其他疏于关心公共财产的理由，想到其他人正在关心它，人们也较倾向于忽视自己的责任。”⁷

Secondly, private property prevents conflict and promotes peace. When people have their own separate domains of interest, "there will not be the same grounds for quarrels, and the amount of interest will increase, because each man will feel that he is applying himself to what is his."⁸ "Indeed, it is a fact of observation that those who own common property, and share in its management, are far more often at variance with one another than those who have property in severalty."⁹ Further, private property has existed always and everywhere, whereas nowhere have communist utopias sprung up spontaneously. Finally, private property promotes the virtues of benevolence and generosity. It allows one to be so with friends in need.

第二，私有财产防止冲突，促进和平。当人们有相互分离的利益范围时，“没有争吵的共同基础，利益将会增加，因为每个人都觉得他是在为自己的事情忙碌。”(8)“一个观察到的事实是，与各自独立拥有财产的人相比，有共同财产和共同参与其管理的人们更容易相互不和。”(9)此外，私有财产始终普遍存在，尚没有一个地方自发地产生共产主义乌托邦。最后，私有财产促进善行和慷慨。它允许一个人善待陷入贫困的朋友。

Roman law, from the Twelve Tables to the Theodosian Code and the Justinian Corpus, recognized the right of private property as near absolute. Property stemmed from unchallenged possession, prior usage established easements, a property owner could do with his property as he saw fit, and freedom of contract was acknowledged. As well, Roman law distinguished importantly between 'national' (Roman) law— ius civile—and 'international' law— ius gentium.

罗马法，从《十二铜表法》（Twelve Tables），到《西奥多西娅法典》（Theodosian Code）和《查士丁尼法典》（Justinian Corpus），都近乎绝对承认私有财产。财产权源于不引起争论的最先、先前的使用建立起来的在他人土地上的通行权或类似权利。一项财产的所有人能够用他的财产做自己认为恰当的事情，订约自由得到承认。另外，罗马法重要地区别了‘国家’（罗马）法和‘国际’法。

The Christian contribution to this classic tradition—embodied in St. Thomas Aquinas and the late Spanish Scholastics as well as Protestants Hugo Grotius and John Locke—is twofold. Both Greece and Rome were slave-holding civilizations. Aristotle, characteristically, considered slavery a natural institution. In contrast, Western—Christian—civilization, not withstanding some exceptions, has been essentially a society of free men. Correspondingly, for Aquinas as for Locke, every person had a proprietary right over himself (self-ownership). Moreover, Aristotle, and classic civilization generally, were disdainful of labor, trade, and money-making. In contrast, in accordance with the Old Testament, the Church extolled the virtues of labor and work. Correspondingly, for Aquinas as for Locke, it was by work, use, and cultivation of previously unused land that property first came into existence.

基督教对这一古典传统的贡献有两个方面，体现在阿奎那和后来的西班牙经院哲学家以及新教徒格劳秀斯和洛克的著作中。古希腊和古罗马都是拥有奴隶的文明。典型地，亚里士多德把奴隶制度当作自然制度。相反，西方基督教文明，尽管有例外，基本上是自由人社会。因此，对于阿奎那，就像对于洛克那样，每个人都有权拥有自己（自我所有）。此外，亚里士多德和古典文明一般都蔑视劳动、贸易和财富的获取。相反，与《旧约》一致，教会赞美劳动和工作。因此，阿奎那和洛克都主张，正是通过工作、利用和耕作先前被没有被利用过的土地，财产才第一次存在。

This classic theory of private property, based on self-ownership, original appropriation (homesteading), and contract (title transfer), continued to find prominent proponents, such as J. B. Say. However, from the height of its influence in the eighteenth century until quite recently, with the advance of the Rothbardian movement, the classic theory had slipped into oblivion.

这一古典私有财产理论，以自我所有权、最先占有（家园）和契约（权利转让）为基础，还有另一些著名支持者，如萨伊。然而，从其在18世纪的鼎盛一直到最近的罗斯巴德运动，古典理论曾经一度走向湮没。

For two centuries, economics and ethics (political philosophy) had diverged from their common origin in natural law doctrine into seemingly unrelated intellectual endeavors. Economics was a value-free "positive" science. It asked "what means are appropriate to bring about a given (assumed) end?" Ethics was a "normative" science (if it was a science at all). It asked "what ends (and what use of means) is one justified to choose?" As a result of this separation, the concept of property increasingly disappeared from both disciplines. For economists, property sounded too normative; for political philosophers property smacked of mundane economics.

两个世纪以来，经济学和伦理学（政治哲学）已经脱离它们在自然法学说中的共同起源，变成了似乎互不相干的学科。经济学是不带有价值观的“实证”科学。它研究的问题是，“什么手段适于带来给定（假定）的目的？”伦理学是“规范”科学（如果它是一门科学的话）。这一分离的结果是，财产的概念在两个学科中都日益消失。对于经济学家来说，财产听起来太具有规范性；对于政治哲学家来说，财产则有点世俗的经济学味道。

In contrast, Rothbard noted, such elementary economic terms as direct and indirect exchange, markets and market prices as well as aggression, crime, tort, and fraud cannot be defined or understood without a theory of property. Nor is it possible to establish the familiar economic theorems relating to these phenomena without the implied notion of property and property rights. A definition and theory of property must precede the definition and establishment of all other economic terms and theorems.

相反，罗斯巴德指出，没有财产理论，直接和间接交换、市场价格、侵犯、犯罪、民事侵权和欺诈等基本的经济学术语就无法得到界定和理解。没有不言而喻的财产和财产权概念，就不可能建立人们熟知的有关这些现象的经济学定理。财产的定义和理论必须先于所有经济学术语和定理。

Rothbard's unique contribution, from the early 1960s until his death in 1995, was the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.

从60年代初至1995年逝世，罗斯巴德的惟一贡献是重新发现了财产和财产权是经济学和政治哲学的共同基础，并系统重建和从概念上综合了现代边际主义经济学和自然法政治哲学，使其成为一个统一的道德科学：自由意志论。

VI. Chicago Diversions 芝加哥转向

At the time when Rothbard was restoring the concept of private property to its central position in economics and reintegrating economics with ethics, other economists and legal theorists associated with the University of Chicago such as Ronald Coase, Harold Demsetz, and Richard Posner were also beginning to redirect professional attention to the subject of property and property rights.¹⁰

正当罗斯巴德重建私有财产概念在经济学的核心地位，并把经济学和伦理学重新结合起来的时候，与芝加哥大学有联系的一些经济学家和法学家，如科斯、德姆塞茨和波兹纳，也在开始把人们的注意力转向财产和财产权这个主题。¹⁰

However, whereas for Rothbard private property and ethics logically precede economics, for the latter private property and ethics are subordinate to economics and economic considerations. According to Posner, whatever increases social wealth is just.¹¹

然而，对于罗斯巴德来说，私有财产和道德规范在逻辑上先于经济学；对于后者来说，私有财产和道德则服从经济学和经济理由。依照波兹纳，增加社会财富的事情都是正义的。¹¹

The difference between the two approaches can be illustrated considering one of Coase's problem cases: A railroad runs beside a farm. The engine emits sparks, damaging the farmer's crop. What is to be done?

两种方法之间的差别可以用科斯的例子加以说明：一条铁路从一个农场旁边通过，火车发出火花，损坏农场主的庄稼。怎么办？

From the classic viewpoint, what needs to be established is who was there first, the farmer or the railroad? If the farmer was there first, he could force the railroad to cease and desist or demand compensation. If the railroad was there first, then it might continue emitting sparks and the farmer would have to pay the railroad to be spark free.

按照古典观点，需要确定谁先在那里，农场主还是铁路？如果农场主在先，他就能够强迫铁路停运或要求补偿。如果铁路在先，那么，它可以继续发出火花，要让铁路消除火花，农场主就要向铁路付钱。

From the Coasean point of view, the answer is twofold. First and "positively", Coase claims that it does not matter how property rights and liability are allocated as long as they are allocated and provided (unrealistically) that transaction costs are zero.

按照科斯的观点，答案有两个。首先，科斯“实证地”声称，只要财产权和责任得到界定，且交易成本（不现实地）为零，那么，如何界定它们无关紧要。

Coase claims it is wrong to think of the farmer and the railroad as either "right" or "wrong" (liable), as "aggressor" or "victim." "The question is commonly thought of as one in which A inflicts harm on B and what has to be decided is, How should we restrain A? But this is wrong. We are dealing with a problem of a reciprocal nature. To avoid the harm to B would be to inflict harm on A. The real question that has to be decided is, Should A be allowed to harm B or should B be allowed to harm A? The problem is to avoid the more serious harm."¹²

科斯宣称，不要错误地考虑农场主和铁路的“对”或“错”（有责任），是“侵犯者”或“受害人”。“人们通常以如下方式思考这个问题：A给B造成伤害，需要确定的是我们应该如何限制A。但是，这是错误的。要避免伤害B，就会伤害A。要确定的真正问题是，应该允许A伤害B，还是允许B伤害A。问题是如何避免较为严重的伤害。“¹²

Further, given the "equal" moral standing of A and B, for the allocation of economic resources it allegedly does not matter to whom property rights are initially assigned. Suppose the crop loss to the farmer, A, is 750. If B is found liable for the crop damage, B will install an SAD or cease operations. If B is found not liable, then A will pay a sum between 1000 for B to install an SAD. Both possibilities result in the installation of an SAD. Now assume the numbers are reversed: the crop loss is 1000. If B is found liable, he will pay A $750, but he will not install an SAD. And if B is found not liable, A is unable to pay B enough to install a SAD. Again, both scenarios end with the same result: there will be no SAD. Therefore, regardless of how property rights are initially assigned, according to Coase, Demsetz and Posner the allocation of production factors will be the same.

此外，给定A和B“平等的”道德标准，就经济资源配置而言，依照科斯的说法，最初把财产权界定给哪一方无关紧要。假设农场主A的作物损失是1000美元，一个消除火花的装置（SAD）给铁路带来的成本是750美元。如果认定B对作物损坏负有责任，那么，B将安装一个SAD或停止运行。如果认定B不负责任，那么，A将支付750美元至1000美元之间的一笔钱给B，使其安装一个SAD。两种情况的结果都是安装一个SAD。现在，把数字颠倒一下：作物损失是750美元，一个SAD的成本是1000美元。如果认定B有责任，他将付给A 750美元，但不会安装一个SAD。如果认定B没有责任，那么，A将不能向B支付足够的钱安装一个SAD。两种情况的结果相同：不会有SAD。因此，依照科斯、德姆塞茨和波兹纳，无论财产权最初如何界定，生产要素的配置是相同的。

Second and "normatively"—and for the only realistic case of positive transaction costs—Coase, Demsetz and Posner demand that courts assign property rights to contesting parties in such a way that "wealth" or the "value of production" is maximized. For the case just considered this means that if the cost of the SAD is less than the crop loss, then the court should side with the farmer and hold the railroad liable. Otherwise, if the cost of the SAD is higher than the loss in crops, then the court should side with the railroad and hold the farmer liable. Posner offers another example. A factory emits smoke and thereby lowers residential property values. If property values are lowered by 2 million, the plant should be held liable and forced to relocate. Yet if the numbers are reversed—property values fall by 3 million—the factory may stay and continue to emit smoke.

第二，至于正的交易成本这一符合现实的情况，科斯、德姆塞茨和波兹纳“规范地”要求法院按照“财富”或“产品价值”最大化的方式在争夺者中分配财产权。这意味着，在上面的例子中，如果SAD的成本小于作物损失，那么，法院应该站在农场主一边，并坚持铁路负有责任。否则，如果SAD的成本高于作物损失，那么，法院就应该站在铁路一边，并坚持农场主负有责任。波兹纳还给出了另一个例子。一个工厂排放烟雾，从而降低住宅财产价值。如果财产价值降低三百万美元，且工厂搬迁成本是二百万美元，那么，工厂应该负有责任，并被强制搬迁。然而，如果数字颠倒一下，财产价值降低二百万美元，而搬迁成本是三百万美元，那么，工厂就可以留下来，继续排放烟雾。

Both the positive and the normative claim of Chicago law and economics must be rejected.¹³ As for the claim that it does not matter to whom property rights are initially assigned, three responses are in order. First, as Coase cannot help but admit, it certainly matters to the farmer and the railroad to whom which rights are assigned. It matters not just how resources are allocated but also who owns them.

芝加哥法学和经济学的实证和规范主张都必须被拒绝。¹³至于财产权最初界定给哪一方无关紧要的说法，有如下三个回答。第一，科斯也不得不承认，对农场主和铁路来说，产权的分配都是重要的。产权的分配不仅影响资源的配置，还决定谁拥有它们。

Second and more importantly, for the value of social production it matters fundamentally how property rights are assigned. The resources allocated to productive ventures are not simply given. They themselves are the outcome of previous acts of original appropriation and production, and how much original appropriation and production there is depends on the incentive for appropriators and producers. If appropriators and producers are the absolute owners of what they have appropriated or produced, i.e., if no liability vis-à-vis second- or third-comers arises out of acts of appropriation and production, then the level of wealth will be maximized. On the other hand, if original appropriators and producers can be found liable vis-à-vis late comers, as is implied in Coase's "reciprocity of harm" doctrine, then the value of production will be lower than otherwise. That is, the "it doesn't matter" doctrine is counterproductive to the stated goal of wealth maximization.

第二，也是更重要的一点，对于社会产品的价值来说，如何分配产权有着根本的重要性。用于生产的资源不是简单地给定的。它们自身是先前的最先占有和生产活动的结果。最先占有和生产活动的多少依赖于最先占有和生产者的动机。如果最先占有和生产者不是他们最先占有和生产（即不因最先占有和生产而对第二或第三个到来者负有责任）的东西的绝对所有者，那么，财富将不会最大化。另一方面，如果能够证明最先占有者和生产者对后来者负有责任，如科斯的“伤害的相互性”学说中隐含的那样，那么，产品价值将会低于其他情况下的水平。也就是说，对于财富最大化这个目标来说，“产权分配无关紧要”的说法是不利于生产的。

Third, Coase's claim that the use of resources will be unaffected by the initial allocation of property rights is not generally true. Indeed, it is easy to produce counterexamples. Suppose the farmer does not lose 1000 to him but worthless to anyone else. If the court assigns liability to the railroad, the $750 SAD will be installed. If the court does not assign liability to the railroad, the SAD will not be installed because the farmer simply does not possess the funds to bribe the railroad to install an SAD. The allocation of resources is different depending on the initial assignment of property rights.

第三，科斯的财产权的初始分配不影响资源配置的说法一般来说也是不正确的。事实上，找出一个反例并不难。假设农场主因为火车放出火花而损失的不是1000美元，而是一座花园。这座花园对他来说价值1000美元，但对别人来说一文不值。如果法院指定铁路负有责任，那么，价值750美元的SAD就会被装上。如果法院不指定铁路负有责任，那么，SAD就不会被装上，因为农场主没有钱去贿赂铁路，使其安装一个SAD。因此，资源配置依财产权的初始分配而不同。

Similarly, contra the normative claim of Chicago law and economics that courts should assign property rights so as to maximize social wealth, three responses are in order. First, any interpersonal comparison of utility is scientifically impossible, yet courts must engage in such comparisons willy-nilly whenever they engage in cost-benefit analyses. Such cost-benefit analyses are as arbitrary as the assumptions on which they rest. For example, they assume that psychic costs can be ignored and that the marginal utility of money is constant and the same for everyone.

类似，芝加哥法学和经济学的规范主张—法院应该以社会财富最大化的方式分配产权—也有三个现成的回答。第一，科学地进行个人之间的效用比较是不可能的，然而，每当法院进行成本-收益分析时，必须进行此类不容分辩的比较。这样的成本-收益分析是武断的，就像其所依据的假设那样武断。例如，他们假设可以忽视心理成本，货币的边际效用是常数且对于每个人来说都相同。

Second, as the numerical examples given above show, courts assign property rights differently depending on changing market data. If the SAD is less expensive than the crop damage, the farmer is found in the right, while if the SAD is more expensive than the damage, the railroad is found in the right. That is, different circumstances will lead to a re-distribution of property titles. No one can ever be sure of his property.¹⁴ Legal uncertainty is made permanent. This seems neither just nor economical; moreover, who in his right mind would ever turn to a court that announced that it may re-allocate existing property titles in the course of time depending on changing market conditions?

第二，就像上面的数字例子表明的那样，法院根据不断变化的市场情况做出不同的财产权分配。如果SAD的价格低于作物损失，法院认定农场主是有理；但是，如果SAD的价格高于作物损失，铁路则成了有理的一方了。也就是说，情况变化将导致财产权的重新分配。如此，没有人能够确信自己的财产。¹⁴ 法律被弄得永远不可靠了。这显得既不正义，也不经济。如果一个法院宣布它可以根据随时间不断变化的市场情况重新分配现有财产权，那么，心智健全的人还会求助于这样的法院吗？

Finally, an ethic must not only have permanency and stability with changing circumstances; an ethic must allow one to make a decision about "just or unjust" prior to one's actions, and it must concern something under an actor's control. Such is the case for the classic private property ethic with its first-use-first-own principle. According to this ethic, to act justly means that a person employs only justly acquired means—means originally appropriated, produced, or contractually acquired from a previous owner—and that he employs them so that no physical damage to others' property results. Every person can determine ex ante whether or not this condition is met, and he has control over whether or not his actions physically damage the property of others. In distinct contrast, the wealth maximization ethic fails in both regards. No one can determine ex antewhether or not his actions will lead to social wealth maximization. If this can be determined at all, it can only be determined ex post. Nor does anyone have control over whether or not his actions maximize social wealth. Whether or not they do depends on others' actions and evaluations. Again, who in his right mind would subject himself to the judgment of a court that did not let him know in advance how to act justly and how to avoid acting unjustly but that would judge ex post, after the facts?

最后，一个道德规范不能仅有持久性和稳定性，不受情况变化的影响，它还必须允许个人在行动之前做出“正义或不正义”的判断。而且，它必须关系到行为者支配下的某种物品。这就是古典私有财产伦理提出最先使用最先拥有原则的理由。根据这一道德规范，正义的行动意味着，一个人仅仅使用正义地获得的手段—最先占有、生产或通过契约从原来所有者手中获得的手段，而且他使用它们时不会给他人的财产造成有形损坏。每个人都能够事先确定这一条件是否得到满足，并控制自己的行为是否会有形地损坏他人的财产。与此形成鲜明对照的是，财富最大化的道德规范在两个方面都不成立。没有人能够事先确定自己的行为是否导致社会福利最大化。如果说这是能够确定的，也只能在事后确定。也不曾有人按照社会福利最大化的方式控制自己的行为。人们的行为是否最大化社会福利，还取决于他人的行为和价值评估。此外，如果法院不让人们事先知道如何正义地行动，如何避免事后会被判决为不正义的行为，心智健全的人会服从这样一个法院的判决吗？

---

1. See section V below.
2. See Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State (Auburn, Al.: Mises Institute, 1993 [1962]); idem, Power and Market (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews & McMeel, 1977 [1970]); idem, The Ethics of Liberty (New York: New York University Press, 1998 [1982]); idem, Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature and other Essays (Auburn, Al.: Mises Institute, 2000 [1974]); idem, The Logic of Action, 2 vols. (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 1997).
3. See also Hans-Hermann Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989); idem, The Economics and Ethics of Private Property (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993).
4. Note the "natural law" character of the proposed solution to the problem of social order—that private property and its acquisition through acts of original appropriation are not mere conventions but necessary institutions (in accordance with man's nature as a rational animal). A convention serves a purpose, and an alternative to a convention exists. For instance, the Latin alphabet serves the purpose of written communication. It has an alternative, the Cyrillic alphabet. Hence, we call it a convention. What is the purpose of norms? The avoidance of conflict regarding the use of scarce physical things. Conflict-generating norms contradict the very purpose of norms. Yet with regard to the purpose of conflict avoidance, no alternative to private property and original appropriation exists. In the absence of prestabilized harmony among actors, conflict can only be prevented if all goods are always in the private ownership of specific individuals and it is always clear who owns what and who does not. Also, conflicts can only be avoided from the very beginning of mankind if private property is acquired by acts of original appropriation (instead of by mere declarations or words of late-comers).
   请注意为社会秩序问题提议的解决办法的“自然法”特征，即私有财产权及其通过最先占有行为的获得不但是习俗，而且是必要的制度（符合作为理性动物的人的本质。）一个习俗服务于一个目的，且存在着这个习俗的备择。例如，拉丁字母表适合书写通信。西里尔字母表是它的一个备择。因此，我们将其称为一个习俗。规范的目的是什么呢？避免稀缺物品使用中的冲突。制造冲突的规范自然与规范的真正目的抵触。然而，要避免冲突，除了私有财产权和最先占有，没有别的选择。如果缺乏预先稳定下来的行为者之间的和谐，防止冲突的惟一办法是，所有物品都是特定个人的私人所有权，而且谁拥有什么和谁不拥有什么总是清楚的。还有，要从人类的开始就避免冲突，私有财产权的获得只能通过先占行为（而不是通过简单的声明或后来者的言辞。
5. While no one could act if everyone owned the value of his property, it is practically possible that one person or group, A, owns the value of his property and can determine what another person or group, B, may or may not do with the things under their control. This, however, means that B "owns" neither the value nor the physical integrity of the things under his control; that is, B and his property are actually owned by A. This rule can be implemented, but it does not qualify as a human ethic. Instead, it is a two-class system of exploiting Uebermensch and exploited Untermensch.
   在每个人都拥有自己财产的价值的情况下，没有人能够采取行动，但实践中有可能的是，一个人或一个团伙A拥有他的财产的价值并能够确定另一个人或团伙B用他们支配的物品可以做什么或不可以做什么。然而，这意味着，B既不“拥有”价值，也不“拥有”受他支配的物品的有形完整性；也就是说，B及其财产实际上归A所有。这一准则能够得到实施，但它不配称人类道德规范。相反，它是由两个阶级组成的体制：剥削他人的上等人和被剥削的下等人。
6. For details see Murray N. Rothbard, Economic Thought Before Adam Smith. An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Volume I (Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar, 1995); also Tom Bethell, The Noblest Triumph. Property and Prosperity Through the Ages (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998).
7. Aristotle, Politics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946), 1261b.
8. Ibid, 1263a.
9. Ibid, 1263b.
10. See Ronald Coase, The Firm, The Market, and the Law (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1988); Harold Demsetz, Ownership, Control, and the Firm (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988); Richard Posner, The Economics of Justice/em>(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981).
11. Posner, The Economics of Justice, p. 74: "an act of injustice (is defined) as an act that reduces the wealth of society."
12. Ronald Coase, "The Problem of Social Cost," in: idem, The Firm, the Market, and the Law, p. 96. The moral perversity of this claim is best illustrated by applying it to the case of A raping B. According to Coase, A is not supposed to be restrained. Rather, "we are dealing with a problem of a reciprocal nature." In preventing A from raping B, harm is inflicted on A because he can no longer rape freely. The real question is: Should A be allowed to rape B, or should B be allowed to prohibit A from raping him/her? "The problem is to avoid the more serious harm.“
    这一主张的道德错乱在A强奸B的例子中可以得到最好的说明。依照科斯的观点，A不应该受限制。相反，“我们正在研究一个具有相互性的问题。”防止A强奸B，A就会受到伤害，因为他不再能够自由地强奸B。真正的问题是，应该允许A强奸B，还是允许B禁止A强奸他或她呢？“问题是避免较为严重的伤害。”
13. See also Walter Block, "Coase and Demsetz on Private Property Rights," Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol.1, no. 2, 1977; idem, "Ethics, Efficiency, Coasian Property Rights, and Psychic Income: A Reply to Harold Demsetz," Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 8, no. 2, 1995; idem, "Private Property Rights, Erroneous Interpretations, Morality and Economics," Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 3, no. 1, 2000; Gary North, The Coase Theorem: A Study in Epistemology (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992); idem, "Undermining Property Rights: Coase and Becker," Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 16, no. 4 (forthcoming).
14. Posner, The Economics of Justice, p. 70-71, admits this with captivating frankness: "Absolute rights play an important role in the economic theory of the law. . . . But when transaction costs are prohibitive, the recognition of absolute rights is inefficient . . . property rights, although absolute, (are) contingent on transaction costs and subservient or instrumental to the goal of wealth maximization."
    公然承认这一点：“在法律的经济理论中，绝对权利发挥着重要作用….但是，当交易成本过高时，承认绝对权利会带来无效率。...财产权，虽然是绝对的，却要视交易成本而定，从属于财富最大化，或者说要有助于财富最大化。”