ClippingKK

今天很多人对于福利政策也是不以为然的，但是他们的表述都不会这么难听，不能说这些穷人穷死活该，国家没责任。他们往往会说其实济贫用别的办法更好，比如发展民间公益组织或曰“第三部门”，会比国家救济更有效率。比如说福利可以少一些，自由应该多一些，这样会给他们提供更多的就业机会。比如“授人以鱼不如授人以渔”，给他们搞职业培训，会比救济帮助更大，等等。 只有韩非、桑弘羊们，敢于赤裸裸地讲，穷人不是懒汉就是醉鬼，他们穷死活该，救济他们就是养懒汉。桑弘羊在这个问题上的立场几乎完全重复了韩非的话。他在盐铁会议中就明确讲：你穷，说明什么？说明你懒。为什么要救济你？但是不救济又如何？西方“右派”会说，不给福利，应该给自由，鼓励他们自谋生计。但是法家却说：福利不给，自由更不能给，让他们四处流浪会有碍观瞻，给强国抹黑。所以国家应该强制收容，把他们抓去劳改，强迫劳动服苦役，这就是“愈而贫者举以为收孥”。毛泽东曾大加称赞这种“孥贫怠以绝消耗”的“大政策”

Following the Meiji Restoration there was a process of transformative institutional reforms in Japan. In 1869 feudalism was abolished, and the three hundred fiefs were surrendered to the government and turned into prefectures, under the control of an appointed governor. Taxation was centralized, and a modern bureaucratic state replaced the old feudal one. In 1869 the equality of all social classes before the law was introduced, and restrictions on internal migration and trade were abolished. The samurai class was abolished, though not without having to put down some rebellions. Individual property rights on land were introduced, and people were allowed freedom to enter and practice any trade. The state became heavily involved in the construction of infrastructure.

these conflicts would turn into bloody civil wars and would create economic ruin and unparalleled human suffering—as well as cause state failure.

Even trade within the Americas was heavily regulated. For example, a merchant in a colony such as New Spain, roughly modern Mexico, could not trade directly with anyone in New Granada, modern Colombia. These restrictions on trade within the Spanish Empire reduced its economic prosperity and also, indirectly, the potential benefits that Spain could have gained by trading with another, more prosperous empire. Nevertheless, they were attractive because they guaranteed that the silver and gold would keep flowing to Spain.

The fear of creative destruction is the main reason why there was no sustained increase in living standards between the Neolithic and Industrial revolutions.

中国后世历代都有这样一种源自法儒、道儒的争论，这并不是自由还是福利的争论，而是反自由还是反福利的争论。都是站在君主立场上博弈，“放”给贵族诸侯亦或收归国家。他们这些反自由者并不搞福利，而反福利的人也是如此，既反福利也不给自由。强调管制的一方主要想管制平民，而强调放任的一方主要想放纵权贵。于是就出现了一种现象，左是老百姓吃亏，右也是老百姓吃亏

British democracy was not given by the elite. It was largely taken by the masses, who were empowered by the political processes that had been ongoing in England and the rest of Britain for the last several centuries. They had become emboldened by the changes in the nature of political institutions unleashed by the Glorious Revolution. Reforms were granted because the elite thought that reform was the only way to secure the continuation of their rule, albeit in a somewhat lessened form.

Along with this new locus for the determination of economic institutions and the new responsiveness after 1688, parliamentarians started making a series of key changes in economic institutions and government policy that would ultimately pave the way for the Industrial Revolution. Property rights eroded under the Stuarts were strengthened. Parliament began a process of reform in economic institutions to promote manufacturing, rather than taxing and impeding it.