Question

跪求纯手工翻译~~

A hundred years ago it was assumed and scientifically “proved” by economists that the laws of society made it necessary to have a vast army of poor and jobless people in order to keep the economy going. Today, hardly anybody would dare to voice this principle. It is generally accepted that nobody should be excluded from the wealth Western industrialized countries, a system of insurance has been introduced which guarantees everyone a minimum of subsistence (生活维持费) in case of unemployment, sickness and old age. I would go one step further and argue that, even if these conditions are not present, everyone has the right to receive the means to subsist (维持生活), in other words, he can claim this subsistence minimum without having to have any “reason”. I would suggest, however, that it should be limited to a definite period of time, let’s say two years, so as to avoid the encouraging of an abnormal attitude which refused any kind of social obligation.
This may sound like a fantastic proposal, but so, I think, our insurance system would have sounded to people a hundred years ago. The main objection to such a scheme would be that if each person were entitled to receive minimum support, people would not work. This assumption rests on the fallacy of the inherent laziness in human nature, actually, aside from abnormally lazy people, there would be very few who would not want to earn more than the minimum, and who would prefer to do nothing rather than work.
However, the suspicions against a system of guaranteed subsistence minimum are not groundless, from the standpoint of those who want to use ownership of capital for the purpose of forcing others to accept the work conditions they offer. If nobody were forced to accept work in order not to starve, work would have to be sufficiently interesting and attractive to induce one to accept it. Freedom of contract is possible only if both parties are free to accept and reject it; in the present capitalist system this is not the case.
But such a system would not only be the beginning of real freedom of contract between employers and employees, its principal advantage would be the improvement of freedom in inter-personal relationships in every sphere of daily life.

Answer 1

一百年前，经济学家们提出一种假想——按照社会发展规律，有必要存在大量的穷人和失业者来保证经济的持续运行，这种假想得到了科学的“证实”。现在，几乎没有人敢表达这种观点。人们普遍接受了，西方工业国家不应该将任何人排除在社会财富之外。因此，作为人们失业、疾病、养老的最低生活保障，保险制度应运而生。再近一步来看，即便不存在这些情况，每个人也都有权生活下去，换句话说，一个人可以不需要任何理由地拿到这笔最低保障金。但是我认为，为了避免让人们产生任何推卸社会义务的反常心态，这种制度只能在一段特定的时间内实施，比方说两年。

这个想法听起来不切实际，但是我认为，如果这样，保险制度一百年前就出现了。我不支持这个制度的主要原因是，如果每个人都有资格得到最低保障金，他们就不会想着工作了。这种假设是基于人们与生俱来的惰性。实际上，除了那些异常懒惰的人，很少有人愿意整天无所事事，只靠那点最低保障金生活。

然而，有些人使用手中持有的资金，只是以强迫他人接受自己提供的工作条件为目的，从这些人的观点来看，对最低保障金制度的怀疑并不是毫无根据的。穷人为赚口饭吃，不得不接受某些工作，要是没有这样的人，那么所有的工作为吸引人来做，都必须足够有趣。只有在双方自愿达成一致的情况下，合同自由才有可能实现；在现在的资本主义制度中情况并非如此了。

但是这种制度不仅标志着雇主和雇员之间真正合同自由的开始，其最大的优点是在日常生活的各个领域改善人际关系自由。

Answer 2

爱卿平身，不要跪了！
A hundred years ago it was assumed and scientifically “proved” by economists that the laws of society made it necessary to have a vast army of poor and jobless people in order to keep the economy going. 一百年前经济学家们推定并且用科学的方法“证明了”维持经济发展的动力需要维持一定规模的没有工作贫困并且失业的。人Today, hardly anybody would dare to voice this principle. 今天貌似再也不敢提起这个理论了It is generally accepted that nobody should be excluded from the wealth Western industrialized countries, a system of insurance has been introduced which guarantees everyone a minimum of subsistence (生活维持费) in case of unemployment, sickness and old age. （代之以来的）被广泛接受是理念是，不该把任何人排斥于业已工业化了的西方国家的财富系统之外。于是一个得以让每个人在失业生病年老时候维系其最低生存条件的社会保障体系被建立起来。I would go one step further and argue that, even if these conditions are not present, everyone has the right to receive the means to subsist (维持生活), in other words, he can claim this subsistence minimum without having to have any “reason”. 我在这里不得不强调，即便维系这个社保系统存在的（物质基础）条件不存在。每个人也有得到其维持最基本生活所需的权利，换句话假设他们想得到这份低保根本不需要任何理由。就有这个权利。I would suggest, however, that it should be limited to a definite period of time, let’s say two years, so as to avoid the encouraging of an abnormal attitude which refused any kind of social obligation.因此我提议我们应该对此作出限制，譬如以2年为限免得是那些不对社会尽义务的异常态度得以放纵。
This may sound like a fantastic proposal, but so, I think, our insurance system would have sounded to people a hundred years ago. 这听起来似乎异想天开，但是我认为我们的社保体系应该叫人们听到100年前的声音（不劳动不得食）。The main objection to such a scheme would be that if each person were entitled to receive minimum support, people would not work. 主要的理由如下假设每个人都被赋予这个低保权利，有些人干脆就不打算工作This assumption rests on the fallacy of the inherent laziness in human nature, actually, aside from abnormally lazy people, there would be very few who would not want to earn more than the minimum, and who would prefer to do nothing rather than work.这个推断建立在人类懒惰会遗传的命题上。除非一些超级懒惰的人，很少有人不愿多赚并不劳而获。
However, the suspicions against a system of guaranteed subsistence minimum are not groundless, from the standpoint of those who want to use ownership of capital for the purpose of forcing others to accept the work conditions they offer. 然而从资方会利用手中资本强制劳方接受其强势的角度来看，反对取消最低社保的意见并非没有道理。If nobody were forced to accept work in order not to starve, work would have to be sufficiently interesting and attractive to induce one to accept it.假设人们都不被勉强为避免饥馑而劳动，那么工作就不得不变得更有意思和吸引力才会使得人们乐意去做。 Freedom of contract is possible only if both parties are free to accept and reject it; in the present capitalist system this is not the case.只有劳资可协商的基础上才谈得到所谓的合同自愿，而在目前的资方强势的条件下谈何容易。But such a system would not only be the beginning of real freedom of contract between employers and employees, its principal advantage would be the improvement of freedom in inter-personal relationships in every sphere of daily life.假设这种劳资平权互动体系真的得以实现，那么最大的好处还是在于可以改善了人际之间的各个层面自由度。

Answer 3

一百年前被认为和科学“证明”的经济学家，对社会的法律有必要有一个庞大军队的贫穷和失业的人才能保持经济。今天，几乎没有人敢声音这一原则。人们普遍认为，任何人都不应该被排除在西方工业化国家的财富，保险制度已实行最低生活保证每个人（生活维持费）怕失业，疾病和衰老。我走一步进一步争辩说，如果这些条件不存在，每个人都有权利得到的手段来维生（维持生活），换句话说，他声称这一最低生活无需任何理由”。我建议，然而，它必须限制在一定的时间内，让我们说两年，以避免鼓励异常的态度，拒绝任何形式的社会义务。这可能听起来像一个荒谬的建议，但是，我认为，我们的保险制度听起来会到一百年前的人们。主要反对这样一个方案是，如果每个人都有权得到最低限度的支持，人们就不会工作。这种假设是依据谬误的内在懒惰的人，实际上，除了特别懒惰的人以外，几乎没有人愿意不想赚超过最低，谁会喜欢做什么而不是工作。然而，怀疑与制度保障最低生活并非空穴来风，立足于那些谁想要使用的资产所有权为目的，强迫别人接受他们提供的工作条件。如果没有人被迫接受工作为了不挨饿，也有足够的有趣和有吸引力的诱导一个接受它。契约自由是可能只有当事人双方自由接受和拒绝它；在目前的资本主义制度的情况不是这样的。但这种制度不仅开始了真正的契约自由的雇主和雇员之间，它的主要优点是改进的自由在人际关系在各个领域的日常生活。