【金句】Friedrich Hayek - The [classical] liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some...

連結

• 來源1 - x.com/FAHayekSays/st...

• 來源2 - www.cato.org/sites/c...

The [classical] liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people -- he is not an egalitarian -- but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are.

當然，[古典]自由主義者不否認有某種優越的人——他不是平等主義者—但他也否認任何人有權決定誰是這些優越的人。

額外內容

部分周圍段落

整段好長，只能包括少部內容

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as “concessions” to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one’s concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - bet he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

當我說保守派缺乏原則時，我並不是要暗示他們缺乏道德信念。典型保守派通常其實是非常堅定道德信念的人。我所指的是在他們沒有政治原則，讓他們能與擁有不同道德價值的人合作，建立一個雙方都能遵守其信念的政治秩序。承認這些原則，讓具有不同價值觀的群體共存，才有可能建立和平社會，使用最小的武力。接受這些原則意味著我們同意容忍許多我們不喜歡的事物。保守派有很多價值觀吸引我比社會主義者的價值觀更強烈；然而，對自由主義者而言，個人對特定目標的高度重視並不足以迫使他人為之服務。我幾乎不懷疑其中一些保守派朋友會對他們認為「向現代觀點讓步」的第三部分的內容感到震驚。雖然我可能不喜歡相關措施與他們一樣多，甚至可能投票反對它們，但我不知道有任何一般原則可以讓我說服持不同意見的人這些措施在我們都渴望的一般社會類型中是不可接受的。要與他人成功生活和工作，不僅需要忠誠於具體目標。它需要對一種秩序做出智力承諾，即使在一個人認為基本的問題上，別人也允許追求不同的目的。

這也是為什麼對自由主義者而言，道德或宗教理想並不是強迫的合適對象，而保守派和社會主義者都承認這種限制。我有時覺得最突出的自由主義特徵，使它與保守主義和社會主義區分開來，是認為關於行為道德信念，如果不直接干擾他人的受保護領域，就沒有理由強迫。這也可以解釋為什麼已悔改的社會主義者似乎比在自由派圈子內更容易找到新的精神家園。

最終，保守派的立場建立在相信任何社會中都有明顯優越的人，他們的繼承標準、價值觀和地位應該受到保護，並且在公共事務上應該比其他人有更大的影響力。自由主義當然不否認有某些優越的人（他不是平等主義者），但他否認任何人有權決定這些優越的人是誰。保守派傾向於捍衛特定的既定階層，並希望擁有權力來保護他們所珍視的人，而自由主義者認為，對既定價值觀的尊重不能證明使用特權、壟斷或國家其他強制力量來保護那些人免受經濟變革的衝擊。雖然他完全意識到文化及知識精英在文明演進中扮演的重要角色，但他也相信這些精英必須通過他們在相同規則下維持地位的能力來證明自己。

與此密切相關的是保守派對民主的常見態度。我之前已經明確表示，我不將多數統治視為目的，而只是手段，也許甚至是那些政府形式中最糟糕的一種（我們不得不選擇的）。但我相信保守派在將當今世界的惡劣歸咎於民主時自我欺騙。主要的惡是無限制的政府，而沒有人有資格掌控無限制的力量。現代民主所擁有的權力要是落入少數精英的手中也會變得更加難以忍受。