A hundred years ago it was assumed and scientifically "proved" by economists that the laws of society make 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 the principle. It is generally accepted that nobody should be excluded from the wealth of the nation, either by the law of nature or by those of society. The opinions are outdated, which were current a hundred years ago, that the poor owed their conditions to their ignorance, lack of responsibility. In all western industrialized countries, a system of insurance has been introduced which guarantees everyone a minimum of subsistence in case of unemployment, sickness and old age. I would go one step further and argue that, even if these conditions are not present, in other words, one can claim this substance 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 encouragement of an abnormal attitude which refuses 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 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 be sufficiently interesting and attractive in order to induce one to accept it. Freedom of contract is possible only if both parties are free to accept and reject if; 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 interpersonal relationships in every sphere of daily life.

People used to think that poverty and unemployment were due to ______.

A．the slow development of the economy

B．the poor and jobless people's own faults

C．the lack of responsibility on the part of the society

D．the large number Of people who were not well-educated