It is certain that the right of property is the most sacred?

of all citizens' rights,and in some respects more important than?

freedom itself,whether because it is more closely connected with?

the preservation of life;?

-

or because, a man's property being easier to

appropriate占用 and harder to defend than his person, the thing

that is the more readily taken should be the more respected;

-

or finally because property is the true foundation of civil society

and the true pledge保證 of the citizens' fidelity忠誠 in fulfilling their

obligations: for if possessions財產(chǎn) did not answer for a person's acts,

nothing would be simpler than to evade規(guī)避 one's duties and flout蔑視 the law.?

If the people governed themselves, with no intermediaries between the

citizens and the state administration, all they would need to do

is to club together in order to pay as required, in proportion to

the public need and private means;?

-

and since each would always be able to keep?

watch over看守/監(jiān)視 the collection and utilization

of public money, no fraud or abuse would be able to?

creep into its management.?

-

The state would never be overburdened負(fù)擔(dān)過重(vt) with debt,?

nor the people weighed down by taxation, or, at least,

they would be consoled操縱 for high taxes by confidence?

about the way in which they were used.

-

★★★

But things cannot be run in this way; however small the boundaries?

of the state, the civil society within it is always too large for?

it to be governed by all its members.?

-

Public funds must necessarily pass through the hands

of its leaders, who, besides the interest of the state, all have

their own private interests, which are not the last to be

considered.

-

★The people for their part, less aware of public

needs than of the avarice貪婪 and unbridled不受約束的 expenditure of?

their chiefs, protest反對/抗議 at seeing themselves forced to go without

necessities in order to provide luxuries for others; and once

they have been embittered憤怒的 beyond a certain point by such

manoeuvres, the most scrupulous絕對正直的 administration will be?

unable to regain their trust.(塔西提陷阱？)

-

In these circumstances, if contributions are voluntary,?

they will produce nothing; if they are made compulsory,?

they are illegitimate; and in this cruel dilemma, whether

to allow the state to perish or to attack the sacred right of

property, lies the difficulty of preserving a wise and just

economy.

Since all governments constantly tend towards laxity放縱, this one?

consideration shows why no state can subsist生存 unless its?

revenues收入 are continually on the increase.

-

Whatever the degree of diligence勤勉, a remedy藥品 that only follows the?

disease, and more slowly, always leaves the state sick: while?

thought is being given to (putting right使恢復(fù)正常) one defect, another makes?

itself felt, and the measures that are adopted produce new?

deficiencies缺陷 themselves;?

-

the result is that, eventually, the nation is taxed?

too highly, the people are oppressed and the government loses all

its vigour元氣, spending much money to little effect.?

★★★(左手倒右手？？？)

It is true that governments hope to keep their peoples?

in greater dependence by giving them with one hand?

what they have taken from them with the other.

-

but this empty sophism is all the more disastrous

for the state because the money taken does not return?

to the hands from which it was taken.?

-

With maxims格言 like this, all one does is to enrich men who?

are idle with money taken from those who are useful.

-

A liking喜好 for conquest征服 is one of the most obvious and

dangerous causes of this increase in need. It is a liking often

engendered產(chǎn)生 by ambition of a kind different from what it

apparently reveals, and is not always what it seems to be;?

-

its true motive is less the overt明顯的 desire for national aggrandizement擴張,

and more the hidden desire to increase the internal authority

of the rulers, by adding to the number of troops and diverting轉(zhuǎn)移

the citizens' attention by the thought of war.