【推文】Stelios Panagiotou - Classical liberalism is one of the most misrepresented traditions...
連結
原推文1 - x.com/panagiotou90st...
Thread Reader App版本（一頁版本） - threadreaderapp.com/...
原文及個人翻譯
Classical liberalism is one of the most misrepresented traditions; sometimes intentionally. Its intentional misrepresentations often aim to present tyranny as the solution to our problems. Here is a thread about 11 persistent misrepresentations of classical liberalism:
古典自由主義是其中一個最常被誤解的傳統；有時甚至是故意如此。 其有意造成的誤解通常旨在將暴政描繪成解決我們問題的方案。 這裡有一系列關於古典自由主義的 11 種常見誤解：
1. ''Classical liberalism has no limiting principles.''
This is just false. Reference to limits is essential. People are supposed to be free to pursue their conception of the good life within limits.
Classical liberals advocate for respecting a regimented sphere of activities within which persons are free to engage in or not engage in without deliberate interference by others, whether civilians or state officials.
To paraphrase the famous saying: 'my liberties end where yours begin and vice versa'. Disrespecting that sphere is off limits from a classical liberal perspective.
(1)「古典自由主義沒有任何限制原則。」
這完全是錯誤的。 提及限制至關重要。 人們應該被允許在一定限度內追求他們對美好生活的理解。
古典自由主義者倡導尊重一個受規範的活動領域，在這個領域中，人們可以自由地參與或不參與，而不會受到其他人的（無論是平民還是官員）蓄意干擾。
用一句著名的話來說：「我的自由在你的開始的地方結束，反之亦然」。 從古典自由主義的角度來看，不尊重這個領域是不允許的。
2. '' Classical liberalism is asocial.''
It is absolutely not. The focus on the importance of protecting individual rights makes sense only in social contexts. It is only in social contexts where these rights can be violated.
Rather than a philosophy that denies community and our social nature, it is a philosophy that recognises it and discerns between good and bad ways of belonging into groups/societies. That not every way of belonging to a group does not need further elaboration.
(2)「古典自由主義是忽視社群的。」
這絕對不是。 側重於保護個人權利的重要性，只有在社會環境中才有意義。 只有在社會環境中，這些權利才可能受到侵犯。
與其說是忽視社群和我們社會本性的哲學，不如說是一種認識到這一點並區分加入群體/社會的良好和不良方式的哲學。 並不需要進一步闡述每種加入群體的途徑。
3. ''Classical liberalism is necessarily morally neutral.''
This is false and misleading because it is based on a conflation. The classical liberal state is not supposed to be 100% morally neutral. It is supposed to be neutral with respect to totalising conceptions of the good life. In other words, the state must abstain from imposing on everyone a moral doctrine that involves commands about how we should or shouldn't act in every aspect of our lives.
The notion of a just or an unjust law/policy is not foreign to classical liberals. The goal is to have laws that approximate morality while understanding human fallibility in discerning that moral law as well as the uncomfortable realisation that coercing action sabotages its moral value. The moral value of an action requires choice. Coercing action disrespects choice and by implication, its potential moral character.
(3)「古典自由主義必然是道德中立的。」
這是不正確且具有誤導性的，因為它基於一種混淆。 古典自由主義國家不應該是 100% 道德中立。 它應該對關於美好生活的總體性概念保持中立。 換句話說，該國必須避免在我們生活的方方面面都強制實施一種道德教條，這種教條涉及關於我們應該或不應該如何行動的命令。
「公正」或「不公正」法律/政策的概念對於古典自由主義者來說並非陌生。 目標是制定盡可能接近道德的法律，同時也要理解人類在辨別這種道德法則時的局限性，以及令人不安的認識到，強制採取行動會破壞其道德價值。 行動的道德價值需要選擇。 強制採取行動不尊重選擇，並且暗示著它潛在的道德特徵。
4. ''Classical liberalism promised equality''
There is nothing remotely appropriate about this misrepresentation. Talking about equality in the abstract is lazy and unilluminating. Equality of what? The equality that classical liberals talked about occurred within a very specific context; in the context of reacting against the notion that some people are naturally 'superior' and that because they are naturally 'superior', all other people are inferior and therefore, dispensable tools for the goals of the 'superior' ones, even goals they choose at whim. Reaction against this notion leads to the emphasis on political equalities, which are not to be conflated with administrative equality. For instance, Montesquieu is adamant about warning that popular government is on the brink of destruction when people interpret equality as also implying administrative equality.
Furthermore, there is no focus on flattening everyone economically speaking. Classical liberals understood full well that hierarchies would still exist. The whole point is that these acceptable hierarchies are to be allowed to arise spontaneously as opposed to them being enforced by a board of bureaucrats.
(4)「古典自由主義承諾平等。」
這種誤解毫無根據。 抽象地談論平等是懶惰且沒有啟發性的。 平等是什麼？ 古典自由主義者所說的平等發生在一個非常具體的情境中；即反對一種觀念，即某些人天生「優越」，並且因為他們天生「優越」，所以所有其他人都劣等人，因此是那些「優越」者的目標（即使是他們隨心所欲選擇的目標）的可處置工具。 反對這種觀念導致強調政治平等，這與行政平等不能混淆。 例如，孟德斯鳩堅決警告說，當人們將平等也理解為意味著行政平等時，民選政府即將走向毀滅。
此外，沒有關注在經濟上使每個人都相同。 古典自由主義者完全了解等級制度仍然會存在。 整個重點是，這些可以接受的等級制度應該被允許自發地產生，而不是由一群官僚來強制執行。
5. ''Communism is the logical conclusion of classical liberalism.''
This is just stunningly untrue. One knows not where to begin to show how false this is. Suffice it to say that any kind of communal property of anything that can function as a means of production is simply inconsistent with the classical liberal defence of economic liberties.
And then there is the tactical issue. Those who have tried to bring communism about have invariably done so by restricting liberties to a ridiculous extent.
(5)「共產主義是古典自由主義的邏輯結論。」
這完全不成立。 難以一言以蔽之，說明這一點有多麼錯誤。 簡而言之，任何形式的公有制，即將任何可用於生產的資源視為公有，都與古典自由主義對經濟自由的捍衛背道而馳。
此外，還存在一個戰術問題。 那些試圖實現共產主義的人總是通過以荒謬的程度限制自由來實現這一目標。
6. ''Classical liberalism is naively utopian.''
Again, it is absolutely not. Classical liberals have been almost invariably realists. This is nowhere more manifest than in the emphasis on the importance of vigilance against aspiring tyrants.
This point is not just false. It is also an inversion of the truth in that antiliberals are frequently utopian or very optimistic about the 'select few' who they want to give power to.
(6)「古典自由主義天真地追求烏托邦。」
同樣，這絕對不是真的。 古典自由主義者幾乎總是現實主義者。 這在強調警惕那些渴望成為暴君的人的重要性方面表現得最為明顯。
這個觀點不僅是錯誤的，而且也是一種顛倒。 因為反自由主義者經常是烏托邦式的，或者對他們想要賦予權力的「精選少數」抱有非常樂觀的態度。
7. ''Classical liberalism is apolitical and focuses on rights instead of responsibilities.''
Well, this does describe the tendencies of people who frequently call themselves liberals but not the major thinkers of the tradition. As also hinted in point 6 above, classical liberals thought they could not stress enough the importance of vigilance against aspiring tyrants. This is perhaps most evident in the classical republican strand of classical liberalism.
(7)「古典自由主義不帶政治色彩，並且關注權利而不是責任。」
嗯，這描述了那些經常自稱為自由主義者的人的傾向，但不是該傳統的主要思想家。 如上文第 6 點所暗示的那樣，古典自由主義者認為他們不能過分強調警惕那些渴望成為暴君的重要性。 這在古典自由主義的共和主義流派中表現得尤其明顯。
8. ''Classical liberalism is based on a false anthropology.''
This is often thrown without explained further, as if the mere mentioning of it settles the issue. The elephant in the room is that classical liberals had a wide variety of views about anthropology. That said, perhaps the only important part of this anthropology for its politics (i.e., the most common anthropological feature of classical liberal thought) is the non-utopian recognition that humans are prone to violence. Thus, the need for being vigilant against those who would aspire to abuse power never ceases.
People who throw this accusation often talk about the 'state of nature'. Nevertheless, almost any classical liberal who spoke about the state of nature' had different ideas about it and its position within the tradition is not that central to begin with.
「古典自由主義基於一種錯誤的人類學。」 這通常沒有進一步解釋就被提出，彷彿僅僅提到它就能解決問題。 隱藏的問題是，古典自由主義者對人類學有著多種不同的觀點。 儘管如此，也許與其政治（即，古典自由主義思想中最常見的人類學特徵）最相關的部分是，非烏托邦地認識到人類容易發出暴力。 因此，警惕那些渴望濫用權力的人的需求永無止境。
那些提出這種指控的人經常談論「自然狀態」。 然而，幾乎所有談論「自然狀態」的古典自由主義者都有不同的想法，而且這種狀態在傳統中並非最核心的部分。
9. ''The ethics of classical liberalism are subversive because they treat wants as sacrosanct.''
Nothing could be further from the truth. As discussed in almost every of the previous points, classical liberals called for an ordered, regimented framework of liberties; not anarchy. Furthermore, the classical liberal's scepticism of those who want to abuse power is enough to reveal how wants are not treated as sacrosanct in classical liberalism.
(9)「古典自由主義的倫理是顛覆性的，因為它將慾望視為神聖不可侵犯。」
這與事實相差甚遠。 如前述各點所述，古典自由主義者呼籲建立一個有秩序、有規律的自由體系，而不是無政府狀態。 此外，古典自由主義者對那些想要濫用權力的人抱持懷疑態度，足以揭示在古典自由主義中，慾望並非被視為神聖不可侵犯。
10. ''Classical liberalism is naively universalistic and neglects culture.''
All one needs to do to see how false this is read classical liberals and how much they stressed cultural differences during the Enlightenment era. A few examples: Montesquieu's Spirit of the laws and his Persian letters, as well as Adam Smith's theory of moral sentiments and the wealth of nations.
(10)「古典自由主義天真地具有普遍性，並且忽視文化。」
要看到這一點有多麼錯誤，只需閱讀古典自由主義者的著作，以及他們在啟蒙時代如何強調文化差異。 一些例子：孟德斯鳩的《精神法典》和《波斯書信》，以及亞當·史密斯的《道德情懷論》和《國富論》。
11. ''Classical liberalism aims to break social bonds.''
This is as false as the view that holds classical liberalism to be asocial. Bonds form and break. Not enforcing those bonds by state coercion does not mean that these bonds will break. To believe that they would is to deny that humans are social beings because it implies that social bonds cannot arise spontaneously (the core of believing in humanity's social nature).
Classical liberalism is not at all asocial. It is just realistic and reminds us that bonds may break. It also reminds us that civil society doesn't have to be entirely directed in a top-down fashion.
(11)「古典自由主義旨在瓦解社會紐帶。」
這就像認為古典自由主義是反社會的。 紐帶會形成和斷裂。 不通過國家強制來執行這些紐帶，並不意味著這些紐帶會斷裂。 相信它們會斷裂，就等於否認人類是社會性生物，因為它暗示社會紐帶無法自發產生（這與相信人類的社會本性密切相關）。
古典自由主義並非完全反社會。 它只是現實，並且提醒我們紐帶可能會斷裂。 它也提醒我們，公民社會不必完全以自上而下的方式運作。