Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • funding for this program is provided by

  • additional funding provided by

  • today we turn to John Locke

  • on the face of it

  • Locke is a powerful ally

  • of the libertarian

  • first

  • he believes,

  • as libertarians today maintain

  • that there are certain fundamental individual rights

  • that are so important

  • that no government

  • even a representative government even a democratically elected government

  • can override them.

  • not only that

  • he believes

  • that those fundamental rights include

  • a natural right

  • to life liberty and property

  • and

  • furthermore he argues

  • that the right to property

  • is not just the creation

  • of government

  • or of law

  • the right to property is a natural right

  • in the sense that

  • it is pre-political

  • it is a right

  • that attaches to individuals

  • as human beings

  • even before government comes on the scene

  • even before parliaments and legislatures enact laws to define rights

  • and to enforce them

  • Locke says in order to think about

  • what it means to have a natural right

  • we have to imagine

  • the way things are

  • before government

  • before law

  • and that's what Locke means

  • by the state of nature.

  • he says the state of nature is the state of liberty

  • human beings are free and equal beings

  • there is no natural hierarchy

  • it's not the case that some people are born to be kings and others were born to be

  • serfs

  • we're free and equal in the state of nature

  • and yet

  • he makes the point

  • but there's a difference between a state of liberty and the state of

  • license

  • and the reason is that even in the state of nature there is a kind of the law it's not

  • the kind of law the legislatures enact

  • it's the law of nature

  • and this law of nature

  • constrains

  • what we can do

  • even though we're free

  • even though we're in the state of nature

  • well what are the constraints?

  • the only constraint

  • given by the laws of nature

  • is that

  • the rights we have

  • the national rights we have

  • we can't give up

  • nor can we take them from somebody else

  • under the law of nature I'm not free

  • take somebody else's

  • life or liberty

  • or property

  • nor am I

  • free

  • to take my own

  • life liberty or property

  • even though I'm free,

  • I'm not free

  • to violate the laws of nature, I'm not free to

  • take my own life

  • or to sell myself into slavery

  • or to give to somebody else

  • arbitrary absolute power

  • over me

  • so where does this constraint

  • you may think it's a fairly minimal constraint, but where does it come from?

  • Well Locke tells us where it comes from

  • and he gives two answers

  • here's the first answer

  • for men

  • being all the workmanship

  • of one

  • omnipotent and infinitely wise maker, namely God,

  • they're his property

  • whose workmanship they are, made to last during his,

  • not one another's pleasure.

  • so one answer the question is why can't I give up my

  • natural rights to life liberty and property

  • well they're not strictly speaking yours

  • after all

  • you are

  • the creature of God.

  • God has a

  • bigger property right in us

  • a prior priority right

  • now you might say that

  • an unsatisfying unconvincing answer at least for those who don't believe in God

  • what did Locke have to say to them

  • well here's where Locke appeals to the idea

  • of reason

  • and this is the idea

  • that if we properly reflect

  • on what it means to be free

  • we will be lead to the conclusion

  • that freedom can't just be a matter of doing whatever we want

  • I think this is what Locke means

  • when he says

  • the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges everyone

  • and reason

  • which is that law

  • teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent

  • no one ought to harm another in his life health liberty for possessions

  • this leads

  • to a puzzling paradoxical

  • feature to Locke's account of rights

  • familiar in one sense

  • but strange in another

  • it's the idea

  • that out natural rights are inalienable

  • what does unalienable mean?

  • it's not for us to alienate them or to get them up to give them a way to trade them the way

  • to sell them

  • consider an airline ticket

  • airline tickets are nontransferable

  • or tickets to the patriots or to the red sox

  • nontransferable tickets

  • are unalienable

  • I own them

  • in the limited sense

  • that I can use them for myself but I can't trade them away

  • so in one sense an unalienable right, a nontransferable right

  • makes something I own

  • less

  • fully mine

  • but in another sense

  • of unalienable

  • rights

  • especially where we're thinking about life liberty and property

  • for a right to be unalienable, makes it more deeply more profoundly mine

  • and that's Locke's

  • sense

  • of unalienable

  • we see it in the American declaration of independence Thomas Jefferson

  • drew on this idea of Locke

  • unalienable rights

  • to life liberty

  • and as Jefferson amended Locke,

  • to the pursuit of happiness. unalienable rights

  • rights that are so

  • essentially mine

  • that even I can't trade them away or give them up

  • so these are the rights we have in the state of nature

  • before there is any government

  • in the case of life and liberty I can't take my own life I can't sell myself into slavery

  • anymore than I can take somebody else's life or take someone else as a slave by force

  • but how does that work in the case of property?

  • because it's essential to Locke's case

  • that private property

  • can arise

  • even before there is any government

  • how can there be a right to private property

  • even before there is any

  • government?

  • Locke's famous answer

  • comes in section twenty seven

  • every man has a property in his own person

  • this nobody has any right to but himself

  • the labor of his body

  • the work of his hands

  • we may say are properly his

  • so he moves

  • as the libertarians later of would move

  • from the idea

  • that we own ourselves

  • that we have property in our persons

  • to the closely connected idea that we own our own labor

  • and from that

  • to the further claim

  • that whatever we mix our labor with

  • is unowned

  • becomes our property

  • whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature has provided, and left it in,

  • he has mixed his labor with, and joined to it something that is his own,

  • and thereby makes it his property

  • why?

  • because the labor

  • is the questionable property of the laborer

  • and therefore

  • no one

  • but the laborer can have a right

  • to what is joined to or mixed with

  • his labor

  • and then he adds this important provision

  • at least where there is enough and as good left in common

  • for others.

  • but we not only

  • acquire our property in the fruits of the earth

  • in the deer that we hunt

  • in the fish that we catch

  • but also

  • if we till and plow and enclose the land and grow potatoes

  • we own not only the potatoes

  • but the land

  • the earth

  • as much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use

  • the product of, so much is his property.

  • he by his labor

  • encloses it from the commons. so

  • the idea is that rights are unalienable seems to distance Locke from a libertarian

  • libertarian

  • wants to say we have

  • an absolute property rate in our selves

  • and therefore we can do with ourselves whatever we want

  • Locke is not a sturdy ally for that view

  • in fact he says if you take

  • natural rights seriously you'll be led to the idea that there are certain

  • constraints on what we can do with our natural rights, constraints given

  • either by God

  • or by reason reflecting on what it means really to be free and really to be free

  • means recognizing

  • that our rights are unalienable

  • so here's the difference between Locke and the libertarians but

  • when it comes

  • the Locke's account of private property

  • he begins to look again

  • like a pretty good ally

  • because he's argument for private property

  • begins with the idea that we are the proprietors of our own person

  • and therefore of our labor and there of the fruits of our labor

  • including not only the things

  • we gather

  • and hunt

  • in the state of nature

  • but also we acquire a property right in the land that we enclosed and cultivate and improve

  • there are some examples that can bring out the

  • the moral intuition

  • that our labor

  • can take something that is unowned

  • and make it ours

  • though sometimes there are disputes about this

  • there's a debate among

  • rich countries and developing countries

  • about trade related intellectual property rights

  • it came to a head recently

  • over drug patent laws

  • western countries and especially the united states say

  • we have a big pharmaceutical industry that develops

  • new drugs

  • we want

  • all countries in the world

  • to agree

  • to respect the patents

  • then there came along the aids crisis in south Africa

  • and the American

  • aids drugs

  • were hugely expensive

  • far more than could be afforded by most Africans

  • so the south African government said

  • we're going to begin

  • to buy a generic version

  • of the AIDS

  • antiretroviral drug

  • at a tiny fraction of the cost

  • because we can find an Indian manufacturing

  • company

  • that figures out how the thing is made

  • and

  • produces it

  • and for a tiny fraction of the cost we can save lives if we

  • don't respect that patent

  • and then the American government said

  • no here's a company

  • that invested research

  • and created this

  • drug

  • you can just

  • start mass-producing

  • these drugs

  • without paying the licensing fee

  • so there was a dispute

  • the US and the pharmaceutical companies sued the south African government to try to prevent

  • their buying the cheap

  • generic

  • this they saw it,

  • pirated version

  • of an aids drug

  • and eventually

  • the pharmaceutical industry gave in

  • and said

  • all right you can do that but this dispute about what the rules

  • of property

  • should be of intellectual property

  • of drug patenting

  • in a way

  • is the last frontier of the state of nature

  • because among nations where there is no uniform law

  • of patent rights and property rights

  • it's up for grabs

  • until by some act of consent

  • some international agreement

  • people enter into

  • some settled

  • rules.

  • what about

  • Locke's account of

  • private property

  • and how it can arise

  • before government and before law comes on the scene

  • is it successful?

  • how many think

  • it's pretty persuasive?

  • how many

  • don't find it persuasive?

  • now let's hear from some critics

  • what is wrong with Locke's account

  • of how private property can arise

  • without consent

  • I think it's justifies

  • European cultural norms as far as you look at

  • how native Americans may not cultivated American land

  • by their arrival

  • in the America's

  • that

  • that contributed to the development of America which would have otherwise necessarily happened

  • then or by that specific group

  • so you think that this defense this defense of private property in land

  • yes because it complicate original acquisitions if you

  • only site the arrival of

  • foreigners that cultivated the land

  • I see, and what's your name?

  • Rachelle

  • Rachelle? Rachelle says this account of how property

  • arises

  • would fit

  • what was going on

  • in north America

  • during the time of the

  • settlement, the European settlement

  • do you think

  • Rochelle, that it's

  • it's a way of defending

  • the appropriation of the land

  • indeed, because he is

  • also

  • you know, justifying the glorious revolution, so I don't think it's inconceivable

  • that he's also

  • justifying colonization as well

  • well that's an interesting

  • historical suggestion

  • and I think there's a lot to be said for it

  • what do you think of the validity of his argument though?

  • because if you're right

  • that this would justify the taking of land in north America

  • from native Americans who didn't enclose it,

  • if it's a good argument

  • then Locke's given us a justification for that if it's a bad argument

  • then Locke's given us

  • a mere rationalization

  • it is morally indefensible

  • I'm leaning to the second one. You're leaning to the second one, but that's my opinion as well

  • alright

  • let's hear

  • if there's a defender of Locke’s account of private property

  • and it would be interesting if they could address Rachelle's

  • worried that this is just a way of defending the

  • the appropriation of land by the American colonists

  • from the native Americans who didn't enclose it

  • is there someone who will defend Locke

  • on that point?

  • you're ready are you going to defend Locke?

  • but you're you're accusing him of justifying the European basically massacre of the native

  • Americans

  • but who says he's defending it maybe the European colonization isn't right

  • you know maybe it's the state of war that he talked about in his second treatise, you know

  • so the war is between the native Americans

  • and the

  • colonists, the settlers

  • that might have been a state of war

  • that we can only emerged from

  • by an agreement or an act of consent

  • and that's what would have been required

  • yeah and both sides would have to agree to and carry out and everything

  • but what about

  • and what's your name? Dan.

  • Dan, what about

  • Rachelle's says

  • this argument

  • in section twenty seven and then in thirty two

  • about appropriating land

  • that argument if it's valid would justify

  • the settlers

  • appropriating that land and excluding

  • others from it

  • you think that argument’s a good argument?

  • well does it kind of imply that the native Americans hadn't already done that?

  • well the native Americans as hunter gatherers didn't actually enclose

  • enclose land so I think Rochelle

  • is on to something there

  • what I wanted

  • I

  • go ahead Dan. At the same time he's saying that just by picking an acorn or taking a apple or

  • maybe killing of buffalo on a certain amount of land

  • that makes it yours because it's your labor and that's your labor would enclose that land

  • so

  • by that definition maybe they didn't have fences

  • around

  • little plots of land but didn't

  • they were using it

  • so by Locke's definitions, so maybe by Locke's definition

  • the native Americans could have claimed a property rights

  • in the land itself but they just didn't have Locke on their side

  • as she points out. good

  • okay that's good

  • One more defender of Locke

  • well I mean just to defend Locke, he does say there are

  • some times in which you can't take another person's land for example you can't acquire land

  • that is common property to people and in terms of American Indians I feel like they already have

  • civilizations themselves

  • and they were using land in common so it's kind of like

  • an analogy to what he was talking about with like the

  • common English property

  • you can't take land that everyone has in common. That's very interesting

  • and you can't take land

  • unless you make sure that there's as much land as possible enough for other people take as

  • well

  • so if you're taking common,

  • so you have to make sure whenever you take land or

  • that there's enough let for other people to use

  • that's just as good as the land that you took

  • That's true, Locke says there has to be this

  • right to private property in the earth is subject

  • to the provision that there be as much and as good left for others

  • what's your name. I'm Fang

  • So Fang in a way agrees with Dan that maybe there is a claim within Locke's framework

  • that could be developed

  • on behalf of the native Americans

  • here's the further question,

  • if the right to private property is natural not conventional,

  • if it's something

  • that we acquire even before we agree to government

  • how does that right constrain what the legitimate government can do

  • in order for finally to see,

  • whether Locke is an ally

  • or potentially

  • a critic

  • of the libertarian idea

  • of the state

  • we have to ask what becomes of our natural rights

  • once we enter into society

  • we know that the way we enter into society is by consent by agreement

  • to leave the state of nature and to be governed by the majority

  • and by a system of laws, human laws

  • but those human laws

  • our only legitimate

  • if they respect

  • our natural rights

  • if they respect

  • our inalienable rights to life liberty and property

  • No

  • parliament

  • no legislature

  • however democratic

  • its credentials

  • can legitimately

  • violate

  • our natural rights.

  • this idea

  • that no law can violate our right

  • to life liberty and property would seem

  • to support

  • the idea of a government so limited

  • that it would gladden the heart of the libertarian

  • after all

  • but

  • those hearts should not be so quickly gladdened

  • because even though

  • for Locke

  • the law of nature persists

  • once government arrived

  • even though Locke

  • insists on limited government

  • government limited

  • by the end for which it was created

  • namely the preservation of property

  • even so

  • there's an important sense

  • in which

  • what counts as my property

  • what counts

  • as respecting

  • my life and liberty

  • are for the government

  • to define

  • that there be property

  • that there be respect

  • for life and liberty

  • is what limits government

  • but what counts

  • as respecting my life

  • and respecting my property

  • that is for governments

  • to decide and define

  • how can that be

  • is Locke contradicting himself

  • or is there an important distinction

  • here in order to answer that question which will decide Locke's fit with the libertarian view

  • we need to look closely

  • at what legitimate government

  • looks like for Locke,

  • and we turn to that next time.

  • Nikola, if you didn't think you'd get caught

  • would you pay your taxes

  • umm, I don't think so

  • I would rather

  • have a system personally

  • that I could give money to exactly those

  • sections of the government that I support and not just blanket support everything.

  • you'd rather be in the state of nature at least on April fifteenth

  • last time

  • we began

  • to discuss Locke's state of nature

  • his account of private property

  • his theory of legitimate government

  • which is government based on consent and also limited government

  • Locke believes in certain fundamental rights that constrain what government can do

  • and he believes that those rights are natural rights

  • not rights that flow

  • from law

  • or from government

  • and so Locke's great

  • philosophical experiment is to see if he can give an account

  • of how there could be

  • aright of private property

  • without consent,

  • before government

  • and legislators arrive on the scene to define property

  • that's his question

  • that's his claim.

  • there is a way,

  • Locke argues,

  • to create

  • property,

  • not just in the things we gather and hunt

  • but in the land itself

  • provided

  • there is enough and it's good enough for others

  • today I want to turn

  • to the question

  • of consent

  • which is Locke’s second big idea, private property is one

  • consent

  • is the other

  • what is the work of consent

  • people here

  • have been invoking the idea of consent

  • since we began

  • since the first week you remember when we were talking about

  • pushing the fat man off the bridge someone said but he didn't agree

  • to sacrifice himself

  • it would be different if he consented

  • or when we were talking about the cabin boy

  • killing and eating the cabin boy

  • some people said well if they had consented to a lottery it would be different then it

  • would be all right

  • so consent has come up a lot

  • and here in John Locke

  • we have one of the great

  • philosophers

  • of consent

  • consent is an obvious, familiar idea in moral and political philosophy

  • Locke says that

  • legitimate government is government founded on consent and who nowadays would disagree

  • with him?

  • sometimes when ideas of political philosophies are as familiar as Locke’s

  • ideas about consent

  • it's hard to make sense of them or at least to find them very interesting

  • but there are some puzzles some strange features

  • of Locke’s account of consent as the basis of legitimate government

  • and that's what I’d like to take up today

  • one way of

  • testing

  • the possibility of Locke's idea of consent

  • and also probing some of its perplexities,

  • is to ask just what a legitimate government

  • founded and consent

  • can do

  • what are its powers according to Locke,

  • well in order to answer that question

  • it helps

  • to

  • remember what the state of nature is like.

  • remember the state of nature is the condition

  • that we decide to leave

  • and that's what gives rise to consent

  • why not stay there why bother with government at all?

  • well, what's Locke's to answer to that question

  • he says there's some inconveniences

  • in the state of nature but what are those inconveniences?

  • the main inconveniences is

  • that everyone

  • can enforce the law of nature

  • everyone is an enforcer or what Locke calls the executor

  • of the state of nature

  • and he means executor literally

  • if someone violates the law of nature

  • he's an aggressor

  • he's beyond reason

  • and you can punish him

  • and you don't have to be too careful or fine

  • about gradations of punishment

  • in the state of nature you can kill him

  • you can certainly kill someone who comes after you

  • tries to murder you

  • that's self-defense

  • but the enforcement power the right to punish everyone can do the punishing in the state of

  • nature

  • and not only can you punish with death people who come after you

  • seeking

  • to take your life

  • you can also punish a thief who tries to steal your goods because

  • that also counts as aggression against

  • the law of nature

  • if someone has stolen

  • from a third party

  • you can go after him

  • why is this

  • well violations of the law of nature are an act of aggression

  • there's no police force there are no judges,

  • no juries

  • so everyone is the judge in his or her own case

  • and Locke observes that when people are the judges of their own cases they tend to

  • get carried away

  • and

  • this gives rise to the inconvenience in the state of nature

  • people over shoot the mark there's aggression there's punishment

  • and before you know it

  • everybody is insecure in their enjoyment of

  • his or her

  • unalienable rights to life liberty and property

  • now he describes in pretty harsh and

  • even grim terms

  • what you can do to people

  • who violate the law

  • of nature

  • one may destroy a man who makes war upon him

  • for the same reason

  • that he may kill a wolf or a lion

  • such men have no other rule, but that of force and violence,

  • listen to this

  • and so may be treated as beasts of prey

  • those dangerous and

  • noxious

  • creatures

  • that would be sure to destroy you if you fall into their power

  • so kill them

  • first

  • so

  • what starts out

  • as a seemingly benign

  • state of nature where everyone's free and yet where there is a law

  • and the law respects people's rights

  • and those rights are so powerful that they're unalienable

  • what starts out

  • looking very benign

  • once you look closer

  • is pretty fierce

  • and filled with violence

  • and that's why people want to leave

  • how do they leave

  • well here's where consent comes in

  • the only way

  • to escape from the state of nature

  • is to

  • undertake

  • an active of consent where

  • you agree

  • to give up the enforcement power

  • and to create a government

  • or a community

  • where there will be

  • a legislature

  • to make law

  • and where everyone

  • agrees in advance

  • everyone who enters

  • agrees in advance

  • to abide by whatever the majority decides

  • but then the question and this is our question and here's where I want to get your views then the question

  • is

  • what powers

  • what can the majority decide

  • now here it gets tricky

  • for Locke

  • because you remember

  • alongside the whole story about consent

  • and majority rule

  • there are these natural rights, the law of nature these unalienable rights

  • and you remember

  • they don't disappear

  • when people

  • join together to create a civil society

  • so even once the majority is in charge

  • the majority can't

  • violate you' re

  • inalienable rights

  • can't violate your fundamental right to life liberty and property

  • so here's the puzzle,

  • how much power does the majority have

  • how limited is the government

  • created by consent?

  • it's limited by

  • the obligation

  • on the part of the majority to respect

  • and to enforce

  • the fundamental

  • natural rights of the citizens

  • they don't give those up we don't give those up when we enter government

  • that's this powerful idea taken over

  • from Locke

  • by Jefferson

  • in the Declaration

  • unalienable rights

  • so let's go to our two cases

  • remember Michael Jordan, Bill Gates libertarian objection

  • to taxation for redistribution well what about Locke’s limited government

  • is there anyone who thinks that

  • Locke

  • does give grounds

  • for opposing

  • taxation

  • for redistribution

  • anybody?

  • if you, if the majority rules that there should be taxation

  • even if

  • the minority should still not have to be taxed because that's

  • taking away property which is

  • one of the rights of nature

  • so

  • and what's your name? Ben

  • so

  • if the majority taxes the minority

  • without the consent of the minority to that particular tax law

  • it does amount to the taking of their property without their consent

  • and it would seem that Locke should

  • object to that

  • you want some

  • textual support for your

  • reading of Locke, Ben

  • I brought some along just in case you raised it

  • if you've got, if you have your text look at one thirty eight passage one thirty eight

  • the supreme power

  • by which Locke means legislature, cannot take from any man any part of his property without his

  • own consent

  • for the preservation of property being the end of government

  • and that for which men enter into society

  • it necessarily supposes and requires

  • that people should have property

  • that was the whole reason for entering a society in the first place

  • to protect the right to property and

  • when Locke speaks about the right to property he often uses that

  • as a kind of global term

  • for the whole category, the right to life liberty and property

  • so that part of Locke

  • at the beginning of one thirty eight seems to support

  • Ben's reading

  • but what about the part of one thirty eight

  • if you keep reading

  • Men therefore in society having property

  • they have such a right to the goods

  • which by the law

  • of the community

  • are theirs,

  • look at this,

  • and that no one can take from them without their consent

  • and then at the end

  • of this passage we see he said so it's a mistake to think that the legislative power

  • can do what it will to dispose to the estates

  • of the subject arbitrarily or take any part of them

  • at pleasure

  • here's what's elusive

  • on the one hand he says

  • the government can't take your property without your consent he's clear about that

  • but then he goes on to say and that's the natural

  • right to property

  • but then it seems that property, what counts as property is not natural but conventional

  • defined by the government

  • the goods which by the law of the community are theirs

  • and the plot thickens

  • if you look ahead to

  • section one forty

  • in one forty he says governments can't be supported without great charge. Government is expensive

  • and it's fit that everyone who enjoys his share of the protection should pay out of

  • his

  • estate

  • and then here's a crucial line

  • but still it must be with his own consent

  • i.e. the consent of the majority

  • giving it either by themselves or through their representatives

  • so what is Locke actually saying

  • property is natural

  • in one sense but conventional

  • in another

  • it's natural in the sense that

  • we have a fundamental unalienable right

  • that their be property

  • that the institution of property exist and be respected by the government

  • so an arbitrary taking property

  • would be a violation of the law of nature

  • and would be illegitimate

  • but it's a further question

  • here's the conventional aspect of property, it's a further question what counts

  • as property, how it's defined

  • and what counts

  • as taking property, and that's up to the government

  • so the consent

  • here we're

  • kind of back to our question

  • what is the work of consent

  • what it takes for taxation to be legitimate

  • is that it be

  • by consent

  • not the consent of Bill Gates himself that he's the one who has to pays the tax

  • but by the content that he and we, all of us within the society gave

  • when we emerged from the state of nature and created the government

  • in the first place

  • it's the collective consent

  • and by that reading

  • it looks like

  • consent is doing a whole lot

  • and the limited government consent creates isn't all that limited

  • does anyone want to respond that or have a question about that? go ahead, stand up

  • well I'm just wondering

  • what Locke's view is on

  • once you have a government that's already in place

  • whether it is

  • possible for people who are born into that government to then leave

  • and return to the state of nature

  • I mean, I don't think that Locke

  • mentioned that at all.

  • what do you think?

  • well I think

  • as the convention it would be very difficult to

  • leave the government

  • because

  • you were no longer

  • there's because nobody else is just living in the state of nature, everybody else is now

  • governed by this legislature

  • what would it mean today, you're asking

  • and what's your name? Nicola

  • to leave the state, suppose you wanted to leave

  • civil society

  • today, you want to withdraw your consent

  • and return to the state of nature. Well because you didn't actually consent to it,

  • you were just born into it,

  • it was your ancestors

  • who joined

  • you didn't sign

  • the social contract I didn't sign

  • all right so what does Locke say there

  • I don't think Locke says that you have to sign anything I think he says that it's kind of implied consent

  • by willingly taking government services you are implying you're consenting to the government

  • taking things from you

  • all right so implied consent, that's a partial answer to this challenge

  • now you may not think that implied consent is as good as the real thing is that

  • what you're shaking your head about Nicola?

  • speak up stand up and

  • I don't think that necessarily just by

  • utilizing the government's

  • you know various

  • resources that

  • we are

  • necessarily implying that we

  • agree with

  • the way that this

  • government was formed

  • or that we have consented to actually join into the social contract

  • so you don't think the idea of implied consent is strong enough to generate any obligation

  • at all to obey government

  • not necessarily no,

  • Nicola if you didn't think you'd get caught

  • would you pay your taxes

  • umm

  • I don't think so

  • I would rather

  • have a system, personally,

  • that I could give money to exactly

  • those

  • sections of the government that I support

  • and not just blanket

  • support everything. you'd rather be in the state of nature of at least on April fifteenth

  • but what I'm trying to get at is you consider that you're under no obligation since you

  • haven't actually entered into an active consent

  • but for prudential reasons you do what you're supposed to do according to the law. exactly.

  • if you look at it that way then you're violating another one of Locke's treatises which is that

  • you can't take anything from anyone else like you can't

  • you can't take the government's services

  • and then not give them anything in return

  • if you

  • if you want to go live in a state of nature that's fine

  • but you can't take anything from the government because by the government's terms which are

  • the only terms under which you can enter the agreement

  • say that you have to pay taxes to take those things. so you're saying that

  • Nicola can go on back to the state of nature if she wants to but you can't drive on

  • Mass Ave. Exactly

  • I want to raise the stakes beyond using Mass Ave,

  • and even beyond taxation

  • what about life

  • what about military conscription

  • yes, what do you think, stand up

  • first of all we have to remember that

  • sending people to war is not necessarily

  • implying that they'll die, I mean obviously

  • you're not raising their chances here,

  • it's not a death penalty

  • so if you're going to discuss whether or not military conscriptions is equivalent to

  • you know suppressing people's right to life

  • you shouldn't approach it that way

  • secondly the real problem here is Locke has this view about consent

  • and natural rights

  • but you're not allowed to give up your natural rights either

  • so the real question is

  • how does he himself figure it out between

  • I agree to

  • give up my life

  • give up my property when he talks about taxes

  • or military conscription for the fact,

  • but I guess Locke would be against suicide

  • and that's still you know my own consent I mean. Good. What's your name?

  • Eric. so I Eric

  • brings us back to the puzzle we've been wrestling with since we started reading Locke

  • on the one hand

  • we have these unalienable rights

  • to life liberty and property which means that even we don't have the power to give them up

  • and that's what creates the limits

  • on legitimate government it's not what we consent to that limits government

  • it's what we lack the power

  • to give away

  • when we consent that limits government

  • that's the

  • that's the point at the heart of

  • Locke's whole account

  • of legitimate government

  • but now you say well

  • if we can't

  • give up our own life, if we can't commit suicide

  • if we can't give up our rights to property how can we then agree to be bound by a majority

  • that will force us

  • to sacrifice our lives or give up our property

  • does Locke have a way out of this or is he basically

  • sanctioning

  • an all-powerful government

  • despite everything he says

  • about unalienable rights

  • does he have a way out of it? who would speak here in defense

  • of Locke or make sense

  • find a way out of this

  • predicament

  • all right go ahead. I feel like there's a general distinction to be made between

  • the right to life

  • that individuals possess and the

  • the fact that the government cannot take away an individual's right to life

  • I think

  • if you look at conscription as

  • the government picking out certain individuals to go fight in war

  • then that would be a violation of the rights their

  • national right to life

  • on the other hand if you have conscription of

  • let's say a lottery for example

  • then in that case

  • I would view that as

  • the population picking their representatives defend them in the case of war

  • the idea being that since the whole population cannot go out there to defend its own right

  • of property it picks its own representatives through a process

  • that's essentially random

  • and the these

  • these sort of elected representatives go out and fight for

  • the rights of the people

  • it looks very similar, it works just like an elected government in my opinion

  • alright so an elected government can conscript citizens to go out and defend

  • the way of life

  • the community

  • that makes

  • the enjoyment of rights possible.

  • I think I think it can because

  • to me it seems that it's very similar to the process of electing

  • representatives the legislature

  • although here

  • it's as if

  • the government

  • it's electing by conscription

  • certain

  • citizens to go die for the sake of the whole

  • is that

  • consistent with respect for a natural right to liberty

  • well what I would say is there's a distinction between picking out individuals

  • and having

  • a random choice of individuals.

  • between let me make sure, between picking out individuals,

  • well I don't, let me what's your name? Gogol.

  • Gogol says there's a difference between picking out individuals

  • to lay down their lives

  • and having a general law

  • I think this is

  • on I think this is the answer Locke would give, actually

  • Locke is against arbitrary government he's against the arbitrary taking

  • the singling out of

  • Bill Gates to finance the war in Iraq

  • he's against singling out a particular citizen

  • or group of people

  • to go off and fight

  • but if there's a general law

  • such that the

  • the government's choice the majority's action is non arbitrary,

  • it doesn't really amount to a violation

  • of

  • people's basic rights

  • what does count as a violation

  • is an arbitrary taking because that would essentially say not only to Bill Gates, but

  • to everyone

  • there is no rule of law there is no institution of property

  • because at the whim

  • of the king or for that matter of the parliament

  • we can name

  • you

  • or you to

  • give up your property

  • or to give up your life

  • but so long as there is a no arbitrary rule of law

  • then

  • it's permissive

  • now you may say this doesn't amount

  • to a very limited government

  • and the libertarian may complain

  • that Locke is not such a terrific ally after all

  • the libertarian has two grounds

  • for disappointment in Locke

  • first

  • that the rights are unalienable and therefore I don't really own myself after all

  • I can't dispose of my life

  • or my liberty or my property

  • in a way that violates my rights

  • that's disappointment number one,

  • disappointment number two

  • once there is a legitimate government based on consent

  • the only limits

  • for Locke

  • are limits on arbitrary

  • the takings of life or of liberty

  • or of property

  • but if the majority decides or if the majority promulgates a generally applicable law

  • and if it votes

  • duly according to fare procedures

  • then there is no violation

  • whether it's a system of taxation

  • or system

  • of conscription

  • so it's clear

  • that Locke

  • is worried about

  • the absolute arbitrary power

  • of kings

  • but it's also true

  • and here's a darker side of Locke

  • that this is great theorist of consent came up with a theory of private property that didn't

  • require consent

  • that may

  • and this goes back to the point Rochelle made last time,

  • may have had something to do with Locke's second

  • concern

  • which was America

  • you remember

  • when he talks about the state of nature he's not talking about

  • an imaginary place

  • in the beginning he says all the world was America and what was going on in America

  • the settlers

  • we're enclosing land

  • and engaged in wars

  • with the native Americans

  • Locke who was an administrator

  • of one of the colonies

  • may have been

  • as interested

  • in providing a justification

  • for private property through enclosure without consent

  • through enclosure and cultivation

  • as he was

  • with developing a theory

  • of government based on consent

  • that would reign in

  • kings and arbitrary

  • rulers

  • the question we're left with

  • the fundamental question we still haven't answered is what then becomes of consent

  • what work can it do

  • what is its moral force

  • what are the limits of consent

  • consent matters not only for governments

  • but also from markets

  • and

  • beginning next time we're going to take up

  • questions of the limits of consent

  • in the buying and selling

  • of goods

  • don't miss the chance to interact online with other viewers of Justice

  • join the conversation, take a pop quiz

  • watch lectures you've missed, and a lot more. Visit justiceharvard.org it's the right thing to do

  • funding for this program is provided by

  • additional funding provided by

funding for this program is provided by

字幕與單字

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋

B1 中級

正義。什麼是正確的事?第04集:"這片土地是我的土地" (Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 04: "THIS LAND IS MY LAND")

  • 496 121
    Zenn 發佈於 2021 年 01 月 14 日
影片單字