【１】今日ほとんどの人々は、民主主義と市場経済、すなわち資本主義のことを、まるで兄弟であるかのように最も自然なぺアとして語っている。【２】ほぼ同時に産業資本主義と代表制民主主義が世界の隅々まで広がったために、この経済と政治の二つのシステムは完全に調和して共存している、という錯覚を作り出してしまったのかもしれない。
　【３】しかし、蓋をあけて中を見てみれば、民主主義と資本主義の中核をなす価値観が、それぞれ非常に異なることは明らかではないか。民主主義は極端な平等を肯定している。【４】つまり、いかに頭が良くても悪くても、勤勉でも怠慢でも、博識でも無知でも、一人一票なのである。社会への貢献に関係なく、選挙の日には、だれもが同じ「一票」をもつのである。【５】歴史的に、この極端な平等のシステムを擁護する支配者はほとんどいなかった。今われわれはあらゆる人に一票を与えている。【６】知性、富、あるいは社会における影響力とは無関係にである。そのようなシステムの恩恵について、かつてのジュリアス・シーザーを説得しようとしたら、どんなことになるだろう。
　【７】一方、資本主義は、極端な不平等を肯定している。経済収益の差はインセンティブの構造を作り出し、それによってだれもが働き続け、すぐ先の未来に投資し続ける。不平等は、健全な資本主義に必要な競争をあおる。【８】市場経済では、富はさらに富をもたらし、貧困はさらに貧困をもたらす。なぜなら、人的物的資産への投資――故に将来的な所得――は、現在の所得によって左右されるからだ。資本主義そのものには、平等化のメカニズムは組み込まれていない。【９】経済的適者は経済的不能者を絶滅させると考えられている。実は、「適者生存」という言葉は、一九世紀の経済学者ハーバード・スぺンサーが作り出し、チャールズ・ダーウィンが進化論を説明するために借用したものだ。【０】一九世紀の資本主義についての厳しい見解では、経済的飢餓は、この経済システムにおいて積極的な役割を果たしていた。資本主義は実は民主主義など必要ないのであり、それは一九世紀のアメリカに見られたように、奴隷制と容易に共存することができるのである。∵
　民主主義と資本主義は、基本的な次元で正反対である。基本的価値が異なるにもかかわらず、資本主義と民主主義の共存を可能にしたのは、先にもふれたように社会福祉と教育への公共投資である。マルクスは、これらの二つの要素、特に公共教育が、近代社会を強固なものにすることを予知していなかった。
　民主的な資本主義国では、国家が市場での結果を平等化するための措置（たとえば、累進税など）をとり、必需品の取得を助ける（たとえば、住宅ローンに対する特別税免除など）。もはや市場に必要とされなくなった人には、国家は年金、ヘルスケア、失業保険などの形で援助を提供する。そして、国家は人々が売りものになる技能、すなわち公共教育を習得するのを助け、そこそこの生活の糧を得られるようにする。（中略）
　このように、二〇世紀のほとんどを通じて、民主主義と資本主義は、相互に緊張はあるが、比較的安定したバランスの中で共存することができた。第二次世界大戦後から一九七〇年代初期にかけての生産性が上昇し賃金が増大し国際経済が拡大し続けた資本主義の黄金時代には、この二つのシステムのチームワークは、すべての問題にとっての完璧な解決策であるかのように思われたかもしれない。
　しかし今日では、この調和に見すごすことのできない亀裂が現れている。民主主義的・資本主義的な社会システムの安定に対する圧力は増す一方で、社会福祉も社会投資も、グローバル経済、および国民経済の変化によって、脅威にさらされている。スカンジナビア諸国の経験からもわかるように、広範囲にわたる社会福祉制度は、理論上は理想的かもしれないが、実際問題として、維持するのが非常に難しいことがわかってきた。まず、所得税五〇パーセント、それに加えて、消費税二〇パーセント余りという形で、所得の半分をはるかに上回る額を政府に取られるというレベルまで税負担が増大し続ける。経済より急速に成長する社会福祉制度をいつまでも保つことは不可能であり、スカンジナビアでは、この試みは限界に達しているようだ。
　レスター・サロー著「経済探検未来への指針」より

The Complete Man

After his marriage to Princess Elizabeth and following her accession to the throne as Queen Elizabeth ? in 1952, Prince Philip's many interests and his sympathetic understanding of present-day problems were reflected in the speeches he made on public occasions. The speech quoted here is characteristic of his clear vision and of his ability to combine courtesy and plain speaking.
In the Middle Ages it was the Church and the universities which were primarily responsible for knitting together the nations of Europe in a common culture. This amounted to a system of thought and behaviour, conditioned by a reverence for the classics and restrained by religion and social custom. Two world wars and the advent of science have completely upset those conditions and removed those restraints. So far we have neither returned to them nor put anything in their place. The responsibility of the universities is therefore much greater today if they are to minister to the specialized needs of modern society and to regain their position as the spiritual and moral reservoirs of Europe and the world.
One of the marks of the Middle Ages was the free movement of scholars from university to university across the face of Europe. Since then the world has grown much smaller and that mobility ought in our day to cover the whole world. Teachers in the arts must surely benefit from a wide personal knowledge of the places where those arts flourished most nobly, and the science teacher must surely draw inspiration from working in the universities which were responsible for some of the greatest strides in science. Perhaps even more important, the movement of teachers and students alike between universities must surely help to break down the narrow nationalism which grows up with isolation. A proper respect for the achievements of others may not be easy in this competitive world, but it is after all the first step towards a broad mind.
European culture, thought, and ideas have drifted all over the world, and although they have received some hard knocks in recent years there are many far-away places where people still believe that Europe has something good to offer. We shall have nothing to offer unless our behaviour, our ideals, and our achievements gain universal respect. We can only have something to offer if the universities have clearly before them what they are aiming to do.
With the inevitable growth of specialization I see the universities facing two great dangers. First, it is very easy to get so involved in the technical details of education that the object of education is lost. And secondly, in an effort to condition a university to the needs of its students and to the needs of the State it may lose its power to make or mould those students into reasonable and responsible men, capable of thinking for themselves and capable of expressing the result of their thoughts to others.
A university must do more than merely provide a high-class professional apprenticeship. It does not matter in the least what a student's specialized line happens to be; the fact that he is a specialist cannot excuse him from his responsibilities as a man. Students must emerge as complete human beings capable of taking their proper place in society as a credit to their universities both for their professional knowledge and as men. There is no conflict between the disciplines here. Nobody can be termed a complete man who has no knowledge of what science has to teach, and, equally, human obligations cannot be escaped on the grounds of being a specialized scientist or technologist.
By human obligations I mean the ability to behave in a reasonable way, to observe restraint so that restraints do not have to be imposed, to be able to think clearly and objectively so that false doctrines cannot gain ground. I believe that it also means the ability to see through nonsense, political, economic, scientific, and so on, and the feeling that it is a duty to resist it. This in no way conflicts with the amount of specialized knowledge, whether scientific, classical, or anything else, which the student can absorb and turn to good account for himself and the community at large.
The universities have a special responsibility to send people of that sort out into the world, because by their influence and example in the community at large they can extend the work of the universities to every corner of the world.
However, to produce the complete man with that balanced sense of obligation and understanding we need to know much more about man himself. Our knowledge of science, the classics, or medicine is beautifully documented, indexed, and ordered. We may not know everything about the subject, but what is known is neatly bound. I imagine that is why we sometimes call this an age of reason, but we forget that -- in the midst of all that reasonable knowledge -- man himself remains as unreasonable, irrational, and unpredictable as ever
Everything around us has been found to have laws and order, and there are some who faintly resent the fact that man refuses to be ordered in the same way. But we must take care not to treat man, with his immense variety of prejudices and emotions, as just another statistical unit. There is the conflict; and it is perhaps inclined to become most noticeable in scientists who deal with ordered things and thoughts in their professional lives, but when the problems are human ones it is not altogether surprising that their ideal solutions are not universally accepted. The reverse is, of course, also true. If you spend your life making compromises it is hard to understand why that is not possible in science.
I would like to repeat that the conflict is not between disciplines, between humanism and science. The conflict lies between man and the world he has made for himself. Man has succeeded in changing many things but he has not changed much himself. It is just because we have got such a grip on nature and such a store of knowledge for its own sake that we must remember the central character, man, and his possibilities, limitations, and the depths he can sink to if he relaxes his self-control.

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh: from Selected Speeches (1955).