Geralmente os textos que coloco aqui são os que considerei muito bons, contêm insights foda ou coisa do gênero, apesar de ser óbvio que o que me impressiona pode ser banal para outrem. Mesmo assim, de tantas e tantas postagens - com a nítida vantagem de [quase] nenhuma ter sido escrita por mim - acho que uma ou outra deve trazer argumentos que alguém esteja procurando. Resumindo: aqui no blogue estão apenas trechos de capítulos que valem ser lidos na íntegra - e é o caso deste aqui. Sem falar que os livros de que foram tirados costumam também serem indicados para quem gosta de ler sobre liberalismo clássico/ libertarianismo. Neste que segue, um tal de Bastiat desintegra alguns dos argumentos socialistas que tentam contrapor o empreendedor e o empregador. Sem firulas.
"A number of men have each a house. One of these houses happens to be burnt down and its owner is ruined. All the rest immediately take alarm, and each says to himself, “The same thing may happen to me.” We cannot be surprised, then, that these proprietors should unite and divide the risk of such accidents as much as possible, by establishing a mutual assurance against fire. The bargain is very simple—here is its formula: “If the house of one of us is burnt down, the rest will club to make good the loss to the man who is burnt out.”
By this means each proprietor acquires a double security; in the first instance he must take a small share in all losses of this nature; but then he is assured that he will never himself be obliged to suffer the whole loss arising from any such misfortune.
In reality, and if we extend the calculation over a great number of years, we see that the proprietor makes, so to speak, a bargain with himself. He sets aside a sufficient fund to repair the misfortunes that may afterwards befall him.
This is association. Indeed it is to arrangements of this nature that the Socialists give exclusively the name of association. Whenever speculation intervenes, association, as they think, disappears. It is improved and perfected, as I think, and as we shall afterwards see.
What has led the proprietors to associate, to enter into this mutual assurance, is the love of fixity, of security. They prefer known risks to risks that are unknown, a multitude of small risks to one great one.
Their design, however, has not yet been completely attained, and there is still much uncertainty in their position. Each of them may say, “If accidents are multiplied, my quota will become insupportable. In any case, I should like to know beforehand, and to have insured in the same way my furniture, my merchandise, etc.”
It would seem that such inconveniences belong to the nature of things, and that it is impossible for men to get rid of them. After each step of progress we are tempted to think that all has been accomplished. How, indeed, can we elude this uncertainty, which depends upon accidents still unknown to us?
But mutual assurance has developed in the social state an experimental knowledge, namely, the average annual proportion between the values lost by accident and the values assured.
Having made all the necessary calculations, a company or an individual says to the proprietors, “In entering into a mutual assurance, you have wished to purchase freedom from anxiety, and the indeterminate quota you reserve annually to cover accidents is the price you pay for this immunity. But if you do not know what this price is beforehand, your tranquillity is never perfect. I now propose to you, therefore, another expedient. In consideration of a fixed annual premium which you shall pay me, I
take upon myself all your chances of accidents. I will insure you all, and here is the capital that will guarantee the fulfillment of my engagement.”
The proprietors accept the proposal, even though this fixed premium should amount to somewhat more than the sum their mutual assurance cost them; for their object is not so much to save a few shillings as to obtain perfect repose and freedom from anxiety.
At this point the Socialists pretend that the principle of association is destroyed. For my part, I think it is improved, and on the road to other improvements to which I can see no limits.
But, say the Socialists, the assured have no longer any mutual tie. They no longer see each other and come to a common understanding. Intermediary parasites have come among them, and the proof that the proprietors are now paying more than is required to cover accidents is to be found in the fact that the insurers obtain large profits.
It is not difficult to answer this objection.
First of all, association exists, but under another form. The premium contributed by the assured is still the fund that is to make good the losses. The assured have found the means of remaining in the association without taking part in its business. This is evidently an advantage to each of them, seeing that the design they have in view is nevertheless attained; and the possibility of remaining in the association while they have their independence of movement and free use of their faculties restored to them is just the characteristic of social progress.
As regards the profit obtained by the intermediate party, it is easily explained and justified. The assured remain associated for the purpose of repairing accidents and making good what is lost. But a company has stepped in that offers them the following advantages: first, it takes away whatever of uncertainty remained in the position of the assured; secondly, it frees them from all care and trouble in connection with accidents. These are services, and the rule is, service for service. The proof that the intervention of
the company is a service possessed of value is to be found in the fact that it is freely accepted and paid for. The Socialists only make themselves ridiculous when they declaim against such middlemen. Do they intrude themselves into commercial transactions by force? Have they any other means of introducing themselves and their services than by saying to the parties with whom they deal, “I will cost you some trouble, but I will save you more”? How, then, can they be called parasites or even intermediaries?"
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário