投资 · 西方古典

弗雷德里克·巴斯夏:经济诡辩·摘录 274

弗雷德里克·巴斯夏《经济诡辩》· Economic Sophisms · 投资

Yet this circumstance--that is to say, the non-reimbursement in the first case, and the reimbursement voluntarily agreed upon in the second--establishes betwixt them such a difference that it is really impossible to class them in the same category. To hand over a hundred pounds by force to a man who has caught you by the throat, or to hand them over voluntarily to a man who furnishes you with what you want, are things as different as light and darkness. You might as well assert that it is a matter of indifference whether you throw your bread into the river, or eat it, for in both cases the bread is destroyed. The vice of this reasoning, like that applied to the word tribute, consists in asserting an entire similitude between two cases, looking only at their points of resemblance, and keeping out of sight the points in which they differ.

出处: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44145
定位:Excerpt 274 · 核对日期:2026-10-19 · 核验:短摘录

白话

关键差别在于:第一种情况钱有去无回,第二种情况对方是自愿同意交换、你会得到回报。这个差别大到不能归为一类。被迫把一百英镑交给掐住你脖子的人,和自愿交给为你提供所需商品的人,完全是两码事,就像把面包扔进河里和吃进肚子,虽然面包都“消失”了,但结果天差地别。这种推理的毛病,和滥用“进贡”一词一样:只强调两个情况的相似性,却把根本差异藏起来。所以,判断贸易支付时,要问钱是否换回了你自愿认可的东西。

上下文

巴斯夏继续用类比拆解保护主义论证,指出“钱出去”本身不是损失,关键看是否自愿交换并获得回报。

今日一问

你能否举出一个自己曾因“只看相似、忽略差异”而误判的例子?

公版作品;原文逐字取自 Project Gutenberg,仅摘录段落并附全书链接。

本文本为公版;底本与原文链接见上。 版权

← 返回原文库