2. 外语
  3. The range and variety of government action that is, at least in principle, reconcilable with a free system is considerable. The

The range and variety of government action that is, at least in principle, reconcilable with a free system is considerable. The

admin2013-11-29  52
问题     The range and variety of government action that is, at least in principle, reconcilable with a free system is considerable. The old formulae of laissez faire or non-intervention do not provide us with an adequate criterion for distinguishing between what is and what is not admissible in a free system. There is ample scope for experimentation and improvement within that permanent legal framework which makes it possible for a free society to operate most efficiently. We can probably at no point be certain that we have already found the best arrangements or institutions that will make the market economy work as beneficially as it could. It is true that after the essential conditions of a free system have been established, all further institutional improvements are bound to be slow and gradual. But the continuous growth of wealth and technological knowledge which such a system makes possible will constantly suggest new ways in which government might render services to its citizens and bring such possibilities within the range of the practicable.
    Why, then, has there been such persistent pressure to do away with those limitations upon government that were erected for the protection of individual liberty? And if there is not much scope for improvement within the rule of law, why have the reformers striven so constantly to weaken and undermine it? The answer is that during the last few generations certain new aims of policy have emerged which cannot be achieved within the limits of the rule of law. A government which cannot use coercion except in the enforcement of general rules has no power to achieve particular aims that require means other than those explicitly entrusted to its care and, in particular, cannot determine the material position in order to achieve such aims; it would have to pursue a policy which is best described—since the word "planning" is so ambiguous—by the French word dirigisme, that is a policy which determines for what specific purposes particular means are to be used.
    This, however, is precisely what a government bound by the rule of law cannot do. If the government is to determine how particular people ought to be situated, it must be in a position to determine also the direction of individual efforts. We need not repeat here the reasons why, if government treats different people equally, the results will be unequal, or why, if it allows people to make what use they like of the capacities and means at their disposal, the consequences for the individuals will be unpredictable. The restrictions which the rule of law imposes upon government thus preclude all those measures which would be necessary to insure that individuals will be rewarded according to another’s conception of merit or desert than according to be value that their services have for their fellows—or, what amounts to the same thing, it precludes the pursuit of distributive, as opposed to communicative, justice. Distributive justice requires an allocation of all resources by a central authority; it requires that people he told what to do and. what ends to serve. Where distributive justice is the goal, the decisions as to what the different individuals must be made to do cannot be derived from general rules but must be made in the light of the particular aims and knowledge of the planning authority. As we have seen before, when the opinion of the community decides what different people shall receive, the same authority must also decide what they shall do.
    This conflict between the ideal of freedom and the desire to "correct" the distribution of incomes so as to make it more "just" is usually not clearly recognized. But those who pursue distributive justice will in practice find themselves obstructed at every move by the rule of law. They must, by the very mature of their aim, favor discriminatory and discretionary action. But, as they are usually not aware that their aim and the rule of law are in principle incompatible, they begin by circumventing or disregarding in individual cases a principle which they often would wish to see preserved in general. But the ultimate result of their efforts will necessarily be, not a modification of the existing order, but its complete abandonment and its replacement by an altogether different system—the command economy.
According to the author, which of the following contradictions is true?
选项 A、Although the government provides equal treatment for all, it cannot guarantee social justice.
B、Although people live under the rule of law, they do not benefit from equal treatment.
C、Although the government’s action is governed by general rules, it can still exert autocratic coercion on its unruly population.
D、Although the government offers favorable socio-economic conditions, most people’s basic needs still remain unsatisfied.
答案A
解析 本题的四个选项中，只有A项为正确答案。这可从文章倒数第二行推知，即尽管政府为所有人提供平等的待遇，但无法保证社会的公平。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/pGhO777K
0

考博英语

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)