2019年1月10日
兩年前寫過一篇〈平等與公平〉，略談平等與公平這兩個不同的概念。剛看到研究全球化的經濟學家 Dani Rodrik以下這段話，很能說明兩者根本不同：
What gives trade particular political
salience is that it often raises fairness concerns in ways that the other major
contributor to inequality— technology—does not. When I lose my job because my
competitor innovates and introduces a better product, I have little cause to
complain. When he outcompetes me by outsourcing to firms abroad that do things
that would be illegal here—for example, prevent their workers from organizing
and bargaining collectively—I may have a legitimate gripe. It is not inequality
per se that people tend to mind. What’s problematic is unfair inequality, when
we are forced to compete under different ground rules.
試譯如下：
貿易在政治上別具意義，是因為它常常以不平等另一個主要促成因素──科技──不會發生的方式令人擔心公平問題。如果我失去工作是因為競爭對手創新並推出更好的產品，我沒有什麼理由抱怨。但如果對手打敗我是因為他將工作外包給海外公司，而那些公司做一些在我們這裡違法的事，例如阻止工人組織起來與雇主集體談判，我深感不滿或許就有正當的理由。人們在意的通常不是不平等本身。真正有問題的是不公平的不平等，例如被迫在不同的基本規則下競爭。
如果你認為 inequality就是不公平，那要怎麼譯 unfair inequality呢？難道要譯「不公平的不公平」？
