Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • When we finished last time,

    --==聖城家園SCG字幕組bbs.cnscg.com==-- 僅供翻譯交流使用, 禁止用於商業用途

  • we were looking at John Stuart Mill's

    --==聖城家園SCG字幕組bbs.cnscg.com==-- 僅供翻譯交流使用, 禁止用於商業用途 --==聖城家園SCG字幕組bbs.cnscg.com==-- 協調: 飛天宇 MAXの依依 時間軸:Money1026 翻譯: 冷兔子 專采油菜花 格蘭思 校對: 橙心橙譯

  • attempt to reply to the critics of Bentham's utilitarianism.

    哈佛大學

  • In his book utilitarianism, Mill tries to show that critics

    公正:該如何做是好? 講師:Michael Sandel

  • to the contrary it is possible within the utilitarian framework

    自由選擇/我屬於誰

  • to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures.

    上節課的最後

  • It is possible to make qualitative distinctions of worth and we tested

    我們談到了約翰·斯圖亞特·穆勒

  • that idea with the Simpsons and the Shakespeare excerpts.

    他試圖去回應對邊沁的功利主義的批判

  • And the results of our experiment seem to call into question

    在功利主義一書中 穆勒極力證明

  • Mill's distinction because a great many of you reported that you prefer

    反對這一理論的批評家們 在功利主義的框架下

  • the Simpsons but that you still consider Shakespeare to be

    是可以區分出高級樂趣和低級樂趣的

  • the higher or the worthier pleasure.

    對價值作出質的區分是可能的 我們已經用

  • That's the dilemma with which our experiment confronts Mill.

    辛普森一家和莎士比亞的短片驗證過這點

  • What about Mill's attempt to account for the especially weighty character

    實驗的結果似乎有悖於穆勒的區分理論

  • of individual rights and justice in chapter five of utilitarianism.

    因為你們很多人雖然說更喜歡

  • He wants to say that individual rights are worthy of special respect.

    辛普森一家 但你們也認為莎士比亞

  • In fact, he goes so far as to say that justice is

    代表著更高 更有價值的樂趣

  • the most sacred part and the most incomparably binding part

    這就是我們的實驗面對穆勒時遇到的兩難境地

  • of morality.

    穆勒試圖在功利主義的第五章 說明個人權利和公正

  • But the same challenge could be put to this part of Mill's defense.

    尤為有力的特點

  • Why is justice the chief part and the most binding part of our morality?

    他想說明的是個人權利應高度重視

  • Well, he says because in the long run,

    實際上 他甚至說公正是

  • if we do justice and if we respect rights,

    道德中最神聖 具有至高約束力的

  • society as a whole will be better off in the long run.

    部分

  • Well, what about that?

    但穆勒的這部分辯護可能面臨同樣的挑戰

  • What if we have a case where making an exception and

    為什麼公正應該是道德最主要 最具約束力的部分?

  • violating individual rights actually will make people better off

    他說 因為長久看來

  • in the long run?

    如果我們維持公正並尊重權利

  • Is it all right then to use people?

    整個社會終究會變得更好

  • And there is a further objection that could be raised

    這個觀點如何?

  • against Mill's case for justice and rights.

    有這樣一個案例

  • Suppose the utilitarian calculus in the long run

    侵犯了個人權利 但長期看來

  • works out as he says it will such that respecting people's rights

    人們的境遇卻更加優渥

  • is a way of making everybody better off in the long run.

    利用別人對嗎?

  • Is that the right reason?

    對於穆勒關於公正和權利的理論

  • Is that the only reason to respect people?

    還有一個更深層的反對

  • If the doctor goes in and yanks the organs from

    假如功利主義演算真如他所言

  • the healthy patient who came in for a checkup

    尊重人們的權利並最終

  • to save five lives,

    使每個人的生活都優裕起來

  • there would be adverse effects in the long run.

    這就是正當理由嗎?

  • Eventually, people would learn about this and

    這是尊重他人的唯一出發點嗎?

  • would stop going in for checkups.

    如果一名醫生偷了一位

  • Is it the right reason?

    去做體檢的健康病人的器官

  • Is the only reason that you as a doctor won't yank the organs

    去救另外五條生命

  • out of the healthy patient that you think, well,

    這終究是會產生負面作用的

  • if I use him in this way, in the long run more lives would be lost?

    最終 這件事會被宣揚出去

  • Or is there another reason having to do with intrinsic respect

    再不會有人光顧這家醫院

  • for the person as an individual?

    這是正當理由嗎?

  • And if that reason matters and it's not so clear

    作為一名醫生 你不去偷健康人器官的唯一原因

  • that even Mill's utilitarianism can take account of it,

    是因為你認為

  • fully to examine these two worries or objections,

    這麼做 終究會有更多人喪生?

  • to Mill's defense we need to push further.

    還是出於對個人權利的

  • And we need to ask in the case of higher or worthier pleasures

    發自內心的尊重?

  • are there theories of the good life that can provide

    如果真是這樣 並且這也不甚明晰

  • independent moral standards for the worth of pleasure?

    即使穆勒的功利主義能將其納入考慮範圍

  • If so, what do they look like? That's one question.

    要完全解釋對穆勒的辯論的兩種擔憂或反對

  • In the case of justice and rights, if we suspect that Mill

    我們需要更深入

  • is implicitly leaning on notions of human dignity

    我們需要探討一下 在更高更有價值的樂趣這個問題上

  • or respect for person that are not strictly speaking utilitarian,

    是否有關於優質生活的理論

  • we need to look to see whether there are some stronger theories

    能夠為樂趣的價值提供獨立的道德標準?

  • of rights that can explain the intuition which even Mill shares,

    如果有 應該是什麼樣的? 這是一個問題

  • the intuition that the reason for respecting individuals

    關於公正和權利 假設穆勒是借用了

  • and not using them goes beyond even utility in the long run.

    人類尊嚴或對個人的尊重這些概念

  • Today, we turn to one of those strong theories of rights.

    而且這些概念嚴格說來並不算是功利主義的

  • Strong theories of right say individuals matter not just as

    我們需要知道關於權利是否有更有力的理論

  • instruments to be used for a larger social purpose

    能夠用來解釋穆勒提到的直覺

  • or for the sake of maximizing utility,

    這一直覺是尊重個人的原因

  • individuals are separate beings with separate lives worthy of respect.

    長期看來 亦不會超越效用

  • And so it's a mistake, according to strong theories

    今天 我們就來看一個這樣的強勢權利理論

  • of rights, it's a mistake to think about justice

    強勢權利理論認為個體

  • or law by just adding up preferences and values.

    不僅是實現更大社會目的的手段

  • The strong rights theory we turn to today is

    或者是為了實現效用最大化

  • libertarianism.

    個體兼具獨立性與獨立生活性 是值得尊重的

  • Libertarianism takes individual rights seriously.

    所以這是一個錯誤 根據有關權利的強勢理論

  • It's called libertarianism because it says

    僅僅通過綜合優先選擇和價值來看待公正

  • the fundamental individual right is the right to liberty

    或法律是錯誤的

  • precisely because we are separate individual beings.

    今天我們要學習的有關權利的強勢理論是

  • We're not available to any use that the society

    自由意志論

  • might desire or devise precisely because we are

    自由意志論將個人權利看得很重

  • individual separate human beings.

    自由意志論名稱的由來是因為

  • We have a fundamental right to liberty,

    這一理論認為個人的基本權利是人身自由權

  • and that means a right to choose freely,

    因為我們是獨立的個體

  • to live our lives as we please

    我們無法提供任何社會需要或

  • provided we respect other people's rights to do the same.

    圖謀的任何用途 而這正是因為

  • That's the fundamental idea.

    我們是獨立的個體

  • Robert Nozick, one of the libertarian philosophers

    我們有基本的人身自由權

  • we read for this course, puts it this way:

    這就意味著我們有自由選擇的權利

  • Individuals have rights.

    按照自己意願生活的權利

  • So strong and far reaching are these rights that they

    只要我們尊重他人的這一權利

  • raise the question of what, if anything, the state may do.

    這就是它的基本觀點

  • So what does libertarianism say about the role of government

    羅伯特·諾齊克 一位自由主義哲學家

  • or of the state?

    他作過這樣的表述:

  • Well, there are three things that most modern states do

    個體擁有權利

  • that on the libertarian theory of rights are

    這些權利是如此強大 深遠 甚至可以

  • illegitimate or unjust.

    要求國家履行其職責

  • One of them is paternalist legislation.

    那麼自由主義對於政府和國家的角色

  • That's passing laws that protect people from themselves,

    持何種觀點呢?

  • seatbelt laws, for example, or motorcycle helmet laws.

    有三件大多數現代國家所做的事情

  • The libertarian says it may be a good thing

    在自由主義權利論看來

  • if people wear seatbelts

    是不合法或不公正的

  • but that should be up to them and the state,

    其一為家長式立法

  • the government, has no business coercing them,

    即制定使人們保護自我的法律

  • us, to wear seatbelts by law.

    例如 安全帶法 或者摩托車頭盔法

  • It's coercion, so no paternalist legislation, number one.

    自由意志論者認為 人們系安全帶

  • Number two, no morals legislation.

    也許是好事

  • Many laws try to promote the virtue of citizens

    但這應該取決於他們自己

  • or try to give expression to the moral values of the society as a whole.

    國家和政府沒有權利通過法律強迫他們

  • Libertarian say that's also a violation of the right to liberty.

    或者我們系安全帶

  • Take the example of, well, a classic example

    家長式立法是強制性的 所以不應該有家長式立法 這是第一條

  • of legislation authored in the name of promoting morality

    第二條 沒有道德立法

  • traditionally have been laws that prevent sexual intimacy

    許多法律嘗試提高公民的德行

  • between gays and lesbians.

    或者嘗試體現整個社會的道德價值觀

  • The libertarian says nobody else is harmed,

    自由意志論者認為這也是對自由權的侵犯

  • nobody else's rights are violated,

    舉一個經典的例子

  • so the state should get out of the business entirely of

    有一條以提高德行為名義制定的法律

  • trying to promote virtue or to enact morals legislation.

    傳統上是用來禁止男同與女同

  • And the third kind of law or policy that is ruled out

    之間的性親密的法律

  • on the libertarian philosophy is any taxation or other policy

    自由意志論者認為沒有人受到傷害

  • that serves the purpose of redistributing income or wealth

    沒有人的權利受到侵犯

  • from the rich to the poor.

    所以國家應該完全停止

  • Redistribution is a... if you think about it,

    嘗試提高道德或制定道德法律

  • says the libertarian is a kind of coercion.

    自由意志派哲學反對的第三種法律或政策是

  • What it amounts to is theft by the state or by the majority,

    任何以把富人的收入或財富重新分配

  • if we're talking about a democracy, from people who happen to

    給窮人為目的

  • do very well and earn a lot of money.

    的稅收政策

  • Now, Nozick and other libertarians allow that there can be

    重新分配是... 自有主義者認為 稍加考慮

  • a minimal state that taxes people for the sake of what everybody needs,

    你就會知道那是一種強迫

  • the national defense, police force,

    這相當於國家或大多數人實行的盜竊

  • judicial system to enforce contracts and property rights,

    如果我們是在討論一個民主國家的話 這就是從那些

  • but that's it.

    優秀的高收入的人那兒搶錢

  • Now, I want to get your reactions to this third feature

    諾齊克和其他一些自由意志論者允許

  • of the libertarian view.

    最弱意義國家的存在 為了大眾利益 徵收稅款

  • I want to see who among you agree with that idea and who disagree and why.

    如 國防 警力

  • But just to make it concrete and to see what's at stake,

    或司法系統執行合同與財產權利

  • consider the distribution of wealth in the United States.

    但僅此而已

  • United States is among the most inegalitarian society as far as

    現在 我想知道你們對自由意志理論

  • the distribution of wealth of all the advanced democracies.

    第三條的闡述有何看法

  • Now, is this just or unjust?

    持贊成意見和反對意見的 都可以說說你們的理由

  • Well, what does the libertarian say?

    但為了更具體一點 並且看看有什麼潛在風險

  • Libertarian says you can't know just from the facts I've just given you.

    看一下美國的財富分配

  • You can't know whether that distribution is just or unjust.

    在眾多的先進的民主國家中

  • You can't know just by looking at a pattern or a distribution or

    美國是貧富差距最大的國家之一

  • result whether it's just or unjust.

    那麼 這是公正還是不公正?

  • You have to know how it came to be.

    那麼 自由意志論者如何說呢?

  • You can't just look at the end stage or the result.

    自由意志論者認為你們不能從我給你的事實中得到什麼

  • You have to look at two principles.

    你們無法知道分配是公正的還是不公正的

  • The first he calls justice in acquisition or in initial holdings.

    你們不能僅憑一種模式或分配

  • And what that means simply is did people get the things they used

    或結果來決定其是公正還是不公正

  • to make their money fairly?

    你必須要知道是如何分配的

  • So we need to know was there justice in the initial holdings?

    你不能只看最後階段或結果

  • Did they steal the land or the factory or the goods

    你必須知道兩條原則

  • that enabled them to make all that money?

    第一條他稱之為獲得物或原始積累中的公正

  • If not, if they were entitled to whatever it was

    道理很簡單 就是人們是用公正合法的手段得到

  • that enabled them to gather the wealth,

    使他們發家的東西的嗎?

  • the first principle is matched.

    所以我們要知道在最初的財產積累中有公正嗎?

  • The second principle is did the distribution arise from

    他們起初是通過偷地 偷工廠或者貨物

  • the operation of free consent, people buying and trading

    來發財的嗎?

  • on the market?

    如果沒有 如果他們是堂堂正正得到

  • As you can see, the libertarian idea of justice corresponds to

    最初使他們發跡的財富

  • a free market conception of justice provided people got what they used

    那麼就符合第一條準則

  • fairly, didn't steal it, and provided the distribution results

    第二條是 分配是在

  • from the free choice of individual's buying and selling things,

    自由意志之下進行的嗎 人們是在市場上

  • the distribution is just.

    自由買賣嗎?

  • And if not, it's unjust.

    從這可以看出 公正的自由觀點與

  • So let's, in order to fix ideas for this discussion,

    公正的自由市場概念相一致 只要人們的所得

  • take an actual example.

    是通過公正合法的手段 而不是通過偷竊 只要分配結果是

  • Who's the wealthiest person in the United States...

    出於個人買賣的自由意志

  • wealthiest person in the world? Bill Gates.

    這種分配就是公正的

  • It is. That's right. Here he is.

    如果不是就是不公正的

  • You'd be happy, too.

    那麼讓我們 為了給這次辯論找出答案

  • Now, what's his net worth? Anybody have any idea?

    舉一個實例

  • That's a big number.

    美國最有錢的人是...

  • During the Clinton years, remember there was a controversy donors?

    世界首富是誰? 比爾·蓋茨

  • Big campaign contributors were invited to stay overnight

    是的 正確 請看屏幕

  • in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House?

    你們也很高興

  • I think if you've contributed twenty five thousand dollars or above,

    那麼他的淨資產是多少? 有人知道嗎?

  • someone figured out at the median contribution that got you invited

    天文數字

  • to stay a night in the Lincoln bedroom,

    還記得克林頓執政時期 有一個很有爭議的捐助者風波嗎?

  • Bill Gates could afford to stay in the Lincoln bedroom every night

    那些大的選舉捐款人受邀在白宮的

  • for the next sixty six thousand years.

    林肯臥室過夜?

  • Somebody else figured out, how much does he get paid on an hourly basis?

    如果你捐2萬5千美元或更多

  • And so they figured out, since he began Microsoft,

    處在中上游水平 你就可以受邀

  • I suppose he worked, what 14 hours per day, reasonable guess,

    在林肯臥室過一夜

  • and you calculate this net wealth, it turns out that his rate of pay

    比爾·蓋茨的資產足夠他在接下來的6萬6千年的每一晚

  • is over 150 dollars, not per hour, not per minute

    在林肯臥室中過夜

  • 150 dollars, more than 150 dollars per second

    有人想知道 他每小時賺多少?

  • which means that if on his way to the office,

    他們算出 自從他創建微軟

  • Gates noticed a hundred dollar bill on the street,

    我猜他每天工作14小時 這猜想很合理

  • it wouldn't be worth his time to stop and pick it up.

    算算他的淨資產 結果顯示他賺錢的速度

  • Now, most of you will say someone that wealthy surely we can tax them

    是150多美元 不是每小時 也不是每分鐘

  • to meet the pressing needs of people who lack in education or lack enough

    是每秒鐘150多美元

  • to eat or lack decent housing.

    就是說如果在他上班的路上

  • They need it more than he does.

    看到地上躺著100美元

  • And if you were a utilitarian, what would you do?

    根本就不值得他彎腰去撿

  • What tax policy would you have?

    現在 你們中的多數人可能會說我們可以向富人徵稅

  • You'd redistribute in a flash, wouldn't you?

    來滿足 得不到教育 缺吃少喝或者沒有體面住房的人的

  • Because you would know being a good utilitarian that taking some,

    迫切需求

  • a small amount, he'd scarcely going to notice it,

    他們比富人更需要這些

  • but it will make a huge improvement in the lives and in the welfare

    如果你是功利主義者 你會怎麼做?

  • of those at the bottom.

    你會採取哪種稅收政策?

  • But remember, the libertarian theory says we can't just add up an

    你們會馬上就實行重新分配 是嗎?

  • aggregate preferences and satisfactions that way.

    因為你將會知道 作為一個出色的功利主義者

  • We have to respect persons and if he earned that money fairly without

    拿出一小部分金額 小到他幾乎不會注意到

  • violating anybody else's rights in accordance with the two principles

    但是這將會在生活和福利方面 為那些生活在底層的人們

  • of justice in acquisition and in justice in transfer,

    帶來顯著的提高

  • then it would be wrong, it would be a form of coercion to take it away.

    但是記住 自由主義理論中提到 我們不能只像那樣

  • Michael Jordan is not as wealthy as Bill Gates but he did

    把所有的偏好度和滿意度進行累加

  • pretty well for himself.

    我們必須尊重個人 如果他通過正當途徑賺錢

  • You wanna see Michael Jordan. There he is.

    不侵害他人的權益 並且符合

  • His income alone in one year was 31 million dollars and then

    公平獲取和公平轉讓這兩條原則

  • he made another 47 million dollars in endorsements for a Nike

    那麼這是錯誤的 剝奪他的財產就成了一種強制性手段

  • and other companies.

    邁克爾·喬丹並不像比爾·蓋茨那麼有錢

  • So his income was, in one year, $78 million.

    但他的收入也相當可觀

  • To require him to pay, let's say, a third of his earnings to

    想看看邁克爾·喬丹嗎 他在那

  • the government to support good causes like food and health care and

    他一年的個人收入是3100萬美元

  • housing and education for the poor, that's coercion, that's unjust.

    並且他通過為Nike還有其他公司代言

  • That violates his rights.

    又賺取了4700萬美元

  • And that's why redistribution is wrong.

    因此 他的年收入為7800萬美元

  • Now, how many agree with that argument, agree with the libertarian argument

    假如說 需要將他收入的三分之一上交給政府

  • that redistribution for the sake of trying to help the poor is wrong?

    用來支持公益事業 像為窮人提供食品 醫療保健

  • And how many disagree with that argument?

    住房和教育 那是強制性的 是不公平的

  • All right, let's begin with those who disagree.

    這侵犯了他的權利

  • What's wrong with the libertarian case against redistribution?

    這就是為什麼重新分配是錯誤的

  • Yes.

    現在 有多少人贊同這個論點 贊同自由主義觀點

  • I think these people like Michael Jordan have received

    認為為了嘗試幫助窮人而進行重新分配是錯誤的?

  • we're talking about working within a society and they receive

    那麼有多少人不同意這個觀點?

  • a larger gift from the society and they have a larger obligation

    好的 由反對的同學開始

  • in return to give that through redistribution, you know,

    反對重新分配的自由主義論案例有什麼問題?

  • you can say that Michael Jordan may work just as hard as some who works,

  • you know, doing laundry 12 hours, 14 hours a day, but he's receiving more.

    我覺得 像邁克爾·喬丹這些人已經獲得了

  • I don't think it's fair to say that, you know, it's all on him,

    社會的回報 而且他們

  • on his, you know, inherent, you know, hard work.

    從社會中獲得了更多饋贈 他們理應有更大的責任

  • All right, let's hear from defenders of libertarianism.

    通過重新分配的方式回報社會 你知道嗎

  • Why would it be wrong in principle to tax the rich to help the poor?

    你可能會說 邁克爾·喬丹可能就像某些人一樣努力工作

  • Go ahead.

    那些在洗衣房連續工作12-14小時的人 但是他得到的更多

  • My name is Joe and I collect skateboards.

    我覺得這樣說不公平 你明白嗎 這全靠他自己

  • I've since bought a hundred skateboards.

    憑借他的 呃 與生俱來的 嗯 勤奮

  • I live in a society of a hundred people.

    好吧 讓我們聽聽自由主義論支持者的聲音

  • I'm the only one with skateboards.

    為什麼在原則上 對富人徵稅來幫助窮人的做法是錯誤的?

  • Suddenly, everyone decides they want a skateboard.

    你來

  • They come to my house, they take my

    我叫Joe 我收集滑板

  • they take 99 of my skateboards.

    我已經買了100塊滑板了

  • I think that is unjust.

    我住在一個100人的社會

  • Now, I think in certain circumstances it becomes necessary

    我是唯一一個擁有滑板的人

  • to overlook that unjustness, perhaps condone that injustice

    突然間 每個人都想要塊滑板

  • as in the case of the cabin boy being killed for food.

    他們來到我家 拿走了我...

  • If people are on the verge of dying, perhaps it is necessary to

    他們拿走了我99塊滑板

  • overlook that injustice, but I think it's important

    我覺得那不公平

  • to keep in mind that we're still committing injustice

    現在 我認為在特定環境下 有必要

  • by taking people's belongings or assets.

    忽視那些不公 或許寬恕那些不公

  • Are you saying that taxing Michael Jordan, say,

    例如船上侍應生被殺害並被作為食物的案例

  • at a 33 percent tax rate for good causes to feed the hungry is theft?

    如果人們瀕臨死亡 忽視不公也許

  • I think it's unjust.

    是有必要的 但是我認為重點在於

  • Yes, I do believe it's theft but perhaps it is necessary to condone that theft.

    要謹記我們始終認為

  • But it's theft.

    拿走別人的財產或資產是不公平的

  • Yes.

    你是說向邁克爾·喬丹徵收 嗯

  • Why is it theft, Joe?

    33%的稅投入到供養饑荒者這種公益事業中 是一種偷竊行為?

  • Because...

    我這為這不公平

  • Why is it like your collection of skateboards?

    是的 我堅信這是偷竊 但是或許有必要原諒這種偷竊

  • It's theft because, or at least, in my opinion and by

    但這是偷竊

  • the libertarian opinion he earned that money fairly and it belongs to him.

    是的

  • So to take it from him is by definition theft.

    為什麼這是偷竊 Joe?

  • All right. Let's hear if there is... em

    因為

  • Who wants to reply to Joe? Yes, go ahead.

    為什麼它像你搜集滑板?

  • I don't think this is necessarily a case in which you have 99 skateboards

    這是偷盜 因為 或者至少 在我看來

  • and the government...

    根據自由主義的觀點 他通過正當途徑掙錢 錢就屬於他

  • or you have a hundred skateboards and the government is taking 99 of them.

    因此 從他那拿走錢被定義為偷竊

  • It's like you have more skateboards than there are days in a year.

    好吧 讓我們聽聽是否有... 呃

  • You have more skateboards that you're going to be able to use

    誰來回應Joe? 就你 說吧

  • in your entire lifetime and the government is taking part of those.

    我認為你的滑板案例和政府的情況

  • And I think that if you are operating in a society in which

    是不同的...

  • the government's not... in which the government doesn't

    或者你有100塊滑板 但政府拿走了其中99塊

  • redistribute wealth, then that allows for people to amass

    這就好比 你擁有了比一年中的天數還要多的滑板

  • so much wealth that people who haven't started from this very

    你有多到你一輩子也用不完的滑板

  • the equal footing in our hypothetical situation, that doesn't exist

    然後政府就拿走了其中一部分

  • in our real society get undercut for the rest of their lives.

    而且我認為 處在有約束的社會中

  • So you're worried that if there isn't some degree of redistribution

    政府沒有... 政府沒有進行

  • of some or left at the bottom, there will be no genuine

    財富重新分配 然而允許人們大肆斂財

  • equality of opportunity.

    而且這些人最初就不像我們假設的那樣

  • All right, the idea that taxation is theft,

    和所有人在同一起跑線上 而這種假設並不存在

  • Nozick takes that point one step further.

    於我們的真實社會 他們只能渾渾噩噩地度過餘生

  • He agrees that it's theft. He's more demanding than Joe.

    所以你擔心 如果不在某種程度上 對某些人或生活在底層的人進行

  • Joe says it is theft, maybe in an extreme case it's justified,

    財富重新分配 那就不會有真正的

  • maybe a parent is justified in stealing a loaf of bread to feed his

    機會平等

  • or her hungry family.

    好的 徵稅是偷竊這個觀點

  • So Joe I would say, what would you call yourself,

    諾齊克作了進一步闡述

  • a compassionate quasi-libertarian?

    他同意那是偷竊 他比Joe還要苛刻

  • Nozick says, if you think about it,

    Joe說這是偷竊 或許在某些極端的情況下這是合理的

  • taxation amounts to the taking of earnings.

    很可能 父母為了挨餓的家人偷了一片麵包

  • In other words, it means taking the fruits of my labor.

    是合理的

  • But if the state has the right to take my earning or the fruits of my labor,

    那麼Joe 我想問 你會怎麼叫自己

  • isn't that morally the same as according to the state the right

    一個富有同情心的准自由意志論者?

  • to claim a portion of my labor?

    諾齊克說 如果你仔細想想

  • So taxation actually is morally equivalent to forced labor

    稅收等同於拿取他人收入

  • because forced labor involves the taking of my leisure, my time,

    換言之 這意味著竊取我的勞動果實

  • my efforts, just as taxation takes the earnings that I make with my labor.

    但是如果國家有權獲取我的所得或者我的勞動果實

  • And so, for Nozick and for the libertarians,

    那是不是在道德上 國家也同樣有權

  • taxation for redistribution is theft, as Joe says, but not only theft is

    來佔有我勞動成果的一部分?

  • morally equivalent to laying claim to certain hours of a person's

    因此稅收實際在道義上等同於強迫勞動

  • life and labor, so it's morally equivalent to forced labor.

    因為強迫勞動包括剝奪我的娛樂 我的時間

  • If the state has a right to claim the fruits of my labor,

    我的成果 就像稅收一樣 剝奪我通過勞動賺取的收入

  • that implies that it really has an entitlement to my labor itself.

    所以 對於諾齊克以及自由意志論者而言

  • And what is forced labor?

    為了重新分配而稅收是一種偷竊行為 正如Joe所說 但是偷盜不僅

  • Forced labor, Nozick points out, is what, is slavery,

    是剝奪個人在生活和勞動中一定的時間

  • because if I don't have the right, the sole right to my own labor,

    而且在道義上 這等於強迫勞動

  • then that's really to say that the government or the

    如果國家有權竊取我的勞動果實

  • political community is a part owner in me.

    這意味著 它的確能名正言順地壓榨我的勞動力

  • And what does it mean for the state to be a part owner in me?

    那麼什麼是強迫勞動?

  • If you think about it, it means that I'm a slave,

    強迫勞動 諾齊克指出 等同於奴役

  • that I don't own myself.

    但是如果我對自己的勞動力沒有獨佔權

  • So what this line of reasoning brings us to is the fundamental principle

    那麼就是說 政府或政治團體

  • that underlies the libertarian case for rights.

    擁有我的部分所有權

  • What is that principle?

    國家擁有我的部分所有權 意味著什麼呢?

  • It's the idea that I own myself.

    你想想看 就會發現這意味著我是個奴隸

  • It's the idea of self possession if you want to take right seriously.

    我喪失了自我

  • If you don't want to just regard people as collections of preferences,

    因此 一系列論證為我們得出

  • the fundamental moral idea to which you will be lead is the idea

    支持自由主義觀點的基本原則

  • that we are the owners or the propietors of our own person,

    什麼原則呢?

  • and that's why utilitarianism goes wrong.

    我擁有自我

  • And that's why it's wrong to yank the organs from that healthy patient.

    如果想更準確些 就是自主的概念

  • You're acting as if that patient belongs to you or to the community.

    如果你不想只是簡單地將人們視為偏好度的集合

  • But we belong to ourselves.

    這將會得出基本道德觀念

  • And that's the same reason that it's wrong to make laws

    我們是自己的所有者或支配者

  • to protect us from ourselves or to tell us how to live,

    那就是功利主義誤入歧途的原因

  • to tell us what virtues we should be governed by,

    這就是為什麼 從健全的病人身體裡取出器官是錯誤的

  • and that's also why it's wrong to tax the rich to help the poor

    你們的所作所為就好像 病人是屬於你們或者屬於社區

  • even for good causes, even to help those

    但是我們屬於自己

  • who are displaced by the Hurricane Katrina.

    同理 我們制定法律

  • Ask them to give charity.

    用以保護自己 或告訴自己如何生活

  • But if you tax them, it's like forcing them to labor.

    告訴自己應該遵循何種美德 這些都是錯誤的

  • Could you tell Michael Jordan he has to skip the next week's games

    這也是通過向富人徵稅的方式 來幫助窮人的錯誤所在

  • and go down to help the people displaced by Hurricane Katrina?

    即使有正當理由 即便為了幫助那些

  • Morally, it's the same.

    因Katrina颶風而流離失所的人

  • So the stakes are very high.

    可以讓他們慷慨解囊

  • So far we've heard some objections to the libertarian argument.

    但是如果向他們徵稅 就像強迫他們勞動

  • But if you want to reject it, you have to break in to

    你能讓邁克爾·喬丹退出下周的比賽

  • this chain of reasoning which goes, taking my earnings

    跑去幫助那些因Katrina颶風流離失所的人嗎?

  • is like taking my labor, but taking my labor

    從道德上講 這是一樣的

  • is making me a slave.

    因此風險很大

  • And if you disagree with that, you must believe in

    到目前為止 我已經聽到一些反對自由主義觀點的論斷

  • the principle of self possession.

    但是如果你想反駁 你必須推翻

  • Those who disagree, gather your objections

    這一系列論證 包括奪走我的收入

  • and we'll begin with them next time.

    就像壓榨我的勞力 而壓榨我的勞力

  • Anyone like to take up that point? Yes.

    則會讓我成為奴隸

  • I feel like when you live in a society, you'd give up that right.

    如果你不同意 你必須認可

  • I mean, technically, if I want to personally go out and kill someone

    自主原則

  • Because I live in a society, I cannot do that.

    那些反對者 收集支持你們反對意見的論據

  • Victoria, are you questioning the fundamental premise of self possession?

    我們將在下次接著討論

  • Yes. I think that you don't really have self possession

    有人想闡述那個觀點嗎? 你

  • if you choose to live in a society because you cannot just discount

    我覺得當你生活在社會中 你必須放棄那項權利

  • the people around you.

    我是說 從學術的角度 因為別人冒犯了我

  • We were talking last time about libertarianism.

    我就得去解決他 那就是自主

  • I want to go back to the arguments for and against

    因為我生活在社會中 我不能那麼做

  • the redistribution of income.

    Victoria 你是在質疑自主的基本前提嗎?

  • But before we do that, just one word about the minimal state,

    是的 我認為如果你選擇在社會中生存

  • Milton Friedman, the libertarian economist,

    你不能真正地自主 因為你不能

  • he points out that many of the functions that

    不管你身邊的人

  • we take for granted as properly belonging to government don't.

    上次我們討論了自由主義

  • They are paternalist.

    我想回顧一下贊成和反對

  • One example he gives is social security.

    收入重分配的論據

  • He says it's a good idea for people to save for their retirement

    但是在這之前 先簡單談談最弱意義國家

  • during their earning years but it's wrong.

    米爾頓·弗裡德曼 自由主義經濟學家

  • It's a violation of people's liberty for the government to force everyone

    他指出 我們認為理所當然的

  • whether they want to or not to put aside some earnings today

    很多職能 恰恰是政府所不具備的

  • for the sake of their retirement.

    他們是家長主義者

  • If people want to take the chance or if people want to live big today

    他給出的一個例子就是社會保障

  • and live a poor retirement, that should be their choice.

    他說人們在能掙錢的時候 為退休生活進行儲蓄

  • They should be free to make those judgments and take those risks.

    這是個好想法 但這是錯誤的

  • So even social security would still be at odds with the minimal state

    無論是否出於自願 政府強制每個人

  • that Milton Friedman argued for.

    將當下的部分收入留給他們的退休生活

  • It sometimes thought that collective goods like police protection

    這違背了個人自由原則

  • and fire protection will inevitably create the problem of free riders

    如果人們想要投機取巧 或者他們寧願現在過著好日子

  • unless they're publicly provided.

    而退休生活過得窘迫 那這是他們的選擇

  • But there are ways to prevent free riders.

    他們應當有自由做出判斷 並為此承擔風險

  • There are ways to restrict even seemingly collective goods

    因此Milton Friedman認為 社會保障與最弱意義國家

  • like fire protection.

    仍然存在差異

  • I read an article a while back about a private fire company,

    他還認為那些公共產品 就像警察保護

  • the Salem Fire Corporation, in Arkansas.

    和消防都會製造免費搭車人的問題

  • You can sign up with the Salem Fire Corporation,

    除非它們面向公眾提供

  • pay a yearly subscription fee, and if your house catches on fire,

    但是也可以消除免費搭車人

  • they will come and put out the fire.

    總有辦法 對於像消防這種表面上的

  • But they won't put out everybody's fire.

    公共產品進行限制

  • They will only put it out if it's a fire in the home

    不久前 我讀了篇關於私人消防公司的文章

  • of a subscriber or if it starts to spread and to threaten

    是位於阿肯色州的Salem消防公司

  • the home of a subscriber.

    你可以和Salem消防公司簽約

  • The newspaper article just told the story of a home owner

    支付會員年費 如果你的房子著火了

  • who had subscribed to this company in the past but failed

    他們就會趕去滅火

  • to renew his subscription.

    但是他們不會為所有人滅火

  • His house caught on fire.

    他們僅在 簽約者的家著火

  • The Salem Fire Corporation showed up with its trucks

    或者蔓延的火勢威脅到

  • and watched the house burn,

    簽約者家的情況下 趕去滅火

  • just making sure that it didn't spread.

    新聞報道講了一位房主的故事

  • The fire chief was asked, well, he wasn't exactly the fire chief.

    這位房主過去定制了這家公司的服務 但是

  • I guess he was the CEO.

    沒有及時續約

  • He was asked how can you stand by with fire equipment and allow

    他的房子著火了

  • a person's home to burn?

    Salem消防公司開著開車趕來

  • He replied, once we verified there was no danger to a member's property,

    看著房子燃燒

  • we had no choice but to back off according to our rules.

    只是確認火勢不會蔓延

  • If we responded to all fires, he said, there would be no incentive

    消防隊長被問到 呃 他並不是真正意義上的消防隊長

  • to subscribe.

    我猜他是CEO

  • The homeowner in this case tried to renew his subscription

    有人問他 你們怎麼能攜有消防設備 卻站在一邊

  • at the scene of the fire.

    放任別人的房子燃燒呢?

  • But the head of the company refused.

    他回答道 一旦我們核實這不會危及到會員的財產

  • You can't wreck your car, he said, and then buy insurance for it later.

    根據規章 我們只能撤退別無選擇

  • So even public goods that we take for granted

    如果我們營救所有火宅 他說 那就不會有人

  • that's being within the proper province of government

    願意簽約

  • can many of them in principle be isolated,

    在這種情況下 屋主試圖

  • made exclusive to those who pay.

    在火宅現場續約

  • That's all to do with the question of collective goods

    但是遭到公司負責人的拒絕

  • and the libertarians injunction against paternalism.

    你不能損壞你的車 他說 之後再為它買保險

  • But let's go back now to the arguments about redistribution.

    因此 即便是被認為是理所應當的

  • Now, underlying the libertarian's case for the minimal state

    在政府管轄範圍之內的公共產品

  • is a worry about coercion, but what's wrong with coercion?

    在原則上也是可以被分離的

  • The libertarian offers this answer:

    只供付費者獨享

  • To coerce someone, to use some person for the sake of the general welfare

    這些都與公共產品的問題

  • is wrong because it calls into question the fundamental fact that we own ourselves

    和反對家長式統治的自由意志論者觀點相關

  • the fundamental moral fact of self possession or self ownership.

    但是讓我們現在回到重新分配的論證上來

  • The libertarian's argument against redistribution begins with

    現在 對於最弱意義國家的問題 自由主義的基礎

  • this fundamental idea that we own ourselves.

    是強制 但是強制有什麼不對?

  • Nozick says that if the society as a whole can go to Bill Gates

    自由主義給出了這麼一個答案:

  • or go to Michael Jordan and tax away a portion of their wealth,

    為了公共福利而強制某人 利用某人

  • what the society is really asserting is a collective property right

    是錯誤的 因為它質疑我們擁有自我這個基本事實

  • in Bill Gates or in Michael Jordan.

    還有自主或自主這個基本道德事實

  • But that violates the fundamental principle that we belong to ourselves.

    自由主義觀點反對重新分配是基於

  • Now, we've already heard a number of objections to the libertarian argument.

    我們自我擁有這個基本思想

  • What I would like to do today is to give the libertarians among us

    諾齊克說如果整個社會都能到達比爾·蓋茨

  • a chance to answer the objections that have been raised and some have been

    或者邁克爾·喬丹的程度 並且通過徵稅獲取他們一部分財富

  • some have already identified themselves and have agreed to come and make

    那麼這正說明了 社會的集體財產就在

  • the case for libertarianism to reply to the objections

    比爾·蓋茨或者邁克爾·喬丹那裡

  • that have been raised.

    但是那違背了我們屬於自我這個基本準則

  • So raise your hand if you are among the libertarians

    現在 我們已經聽過若干反對自由主義論證的意見了

  • who's prepared to stand up for the theory and respond to the objections.

    今天我要做的就是 給我們中的自由意志論者

  • You are?

    一個機會來反駁提出的反對論據 而且有些

  • Alex Harris.

    有些已經表面立場 並且同意來這

  • Alex Harris, who's been a star on the web blog.

    證明自由主義 回應那些已舉出的

  • All right, Alex, come here.

    反對意見的論據

  • Stand up. Come.

    如果是準備支持自由主義理論的自由意志論者

  • We'll create a libertarian corner over here.

    那麼舉起你的手 回應這些反對意見

  • And who else?

    你是?

  • Other libertarians who will join. What's your name?

    我是Alex Harris

  • - John. - John?

    Alex Harris是個網絡博客紅人

  • - Sheffield. - John Sheffield.

    好吧 Alex 到這來

  • Who else wants to join?

    起立 來

  • Other brave libertarians who are prepared to take on

    我們將創建一個自由意志論者角

  • - Yes, what's your name? - Julia Rotto.

    還有誰?

  • Julia Rotto. Julia, come join us over there.

    有想加入的自由意志論者嗎 你叫什麼?

  • Now, while the... while team libertarian

    - John - John嗎?

  • Julie, John, Alex.

    - Sheffield - John Sheffield啊

  • While team libertarian is gathering over there,

    還有誰想加入?

  • let me just summarize the main objections that I've heard

    還有其他勇敢的自由意志論者準備參與的嗎

  • in class and on the website.

    - 好的 你叫什麼名字? - Julia Rotto

  • Objection number one... and here I'll come down to...

    Julia Rotto Julia 到那去加入我們

  • I wanna talk to team libertarian over here.

    現在 當... 當自由意志論者隊

  • So objection number one is that the poor need the money more.

    Julie John和Alex

  • That's an obvious objection, a lot more than... thanks...

    自由意志論者隊聚在那邊

  • than do Bill Gates and Michael Jordan.

    我就總結下 我們在課堂上和網絡上聽到的

  • Objection number two, it's not really slavery to tax because

    主要的反對意見

  • at least in a democratic society it's not a slave holder.

    反對意見1... 現在我要過去...

  • It's congress. It's a democratic...

    我想到那邊和自由意志論者隊談談

  • you're smiling, Alex, already.

    那麼反對意見1是 窮人更需錢

  • You're confident you can reply to all of these?

    這是個很明顯的反對論據 比... 謝謝...

  • So taxation by consent of the governed is not coercive.

    比比爾·蓋茨和邁爾克·喬丹更需要錢

  • Third, some people have said don't the successful like Gates

    反對意見2 繳稅並不是真正意義上的奴役 因為

  • owe a debt to society for their success that they repay by paying taxes.

    至少在民主社會 這並不是奴役行為

  • Who wants to respond to the first one,

    是國會 是民主的...

  • the poor need the money more?

    你已經在笑了 Alex

  • - All right, and you're? - John.

    你有信心能夠回應所有的反對意見嗎?

  • John. All right, John, what's the... here I'll hold it.

    經過政府部門認可的稅收並不是強制的

  • All right. The poor need the money more.

    第三 有人說過 像蓋茨那樣成功的人

  • That's quite obvious. I could use the money.

    虧欠社會 他們理應通過納稅的方式回饋社會

  • You know, I certainly wouldn't mind if Bill Gates give

    誰想回應第一個

  • me a million dollars.

    窮人更需要錢?

  • I mean, I'd take a thousand.

    - 好吧 你是? - John

  • But at some point you have to understand that

    John 好吧 John 什麼... 我站這拿著它

  • the benefits of redistribution of wealth don't justify the initial

    好的 窮人更需要錢

  • violation of the property right.

    這很明顯 我可以用這筆錢

  • If you look at the argument the poor need the money more,

    你知道 如果比爾·蓋茨給我100萬美元

  • at no point in that argument do you contradict the fact that

    我肯定不會介意

  • we've extrapolated from, agreed upon principles

    我是說 1000萬當然更好

  • that people own themselves.

    但是基於這點 你必須明白

  • We've extrapolated that people have property rights and so whether or not

    財富重新分配並沒有

  • it would be a good thing or a nice thing or even

    在最初就侵害大家的產權

  • a necessary thing for the survival of some people,

    如果你看看窮人更需要錢這個觀點

  • we don't see that that justifies the violation of the right

    這個觀點並沒有與 我們推測得到

  • that we've logically extrapolated.

    並贊同的原則相悖

  • Good. Okay.

    那就是人們擁有自我

  • And so that also, I mean, there still exist this institution

    我們得出人們擁有財產權 因此無論

  • of like individual philanthropy.

    這對於某些人的生存來說 是否是件

  • Milton Friedman makes this argument...

    好事 甚至是必要的事

  • All right, so Bill Gates can give to charity if he wants to.

    我們並不清楚 違背我們已通過推理得到的

  • Right.

    正當做法是否合理

  • But it would still be wrong to coerce him.

    好的 行

  • Exactly.

    因此那也是 我是說 仍然存在著

  • To meet the needs of the poor.

    像私人慈善這種機構

  • Exactly.

    米爾頓·弗裡德曼做出論斷...

  • Are the two of you happy with that reply?

    好吧 只要比爾·蓋茨想 他就能捐錢給慈善機構

  • Anything to add? All right, go ahead. Julie?

    對的

  • Julia, yes. I think I can also add, it's okay.

    但是強制他這麼做仍然是錯誤的

  • I guess I could add that there's a difference between needing something

    沒錯

  • and deserving something.

    為了滿足窮人的需求

  • I mean, in an ideal society everyone's needs would be met

    確實

  • but here we're arguing what do we deserve as a society and, yeah.

    你們滿意這個回答嗎?

  • And the poor don't deserve don't deserve the benefits

    有沒有補充? 好的 你來 Julie?

  • that would flow from taxing Michael Jordan to help them.

    Julia 是的 我想我還能補充 沒事

  • Based on what we've covered here I don't think you deserve

    我想我補充的是 需要和應得這兩者間

  • something like that.

    還是有區別的

  • All right, let me push you a little bit on that, Julia.

    我的意思是 在理想社會中 每個人的需求都會被滿足

  • The victims of Hurricane Katrina are in desperate need of help.

    但是我們爭論的是 我們應得的是什麼 是啊

  • Would you say that they don't deserve help that would come

    而窮人不應該 不該得到為了幫助他們

  • from the federal government through taxation?

    向邁克爾·喬丹徵稅得來的福利

  • Okay, that's a difficult question.

    基於我們現在所涉及的 我認為他們不應得到

  • I think this is a case where they need help, not deserve it, but I think,

    那樣的福利

  • again, if you had a certain level of requirements to meet sustenance,

    好的 讓我再給你加把力 Julia

  • you're gonna need help, like, if you don't have food

    Katrina颶風的受害者亟需救助

  • or a place to live, that's a case of need.

    你還會說 他們不應該得到來自

  • So need is one thing and deserve is another.

    聯邦政府通過徵稅得來的救助嗎?

  • Exactly.

    嗯 這是個難題

  • All right. Who would like to reply?

    我認為這種需要幫助的情況 並不是應得的 但是我還是覺得

  • Yes.

    如果為了維持生計 有某種程度的需求

  • Going back to the first point that you made about the

    你需要幫助 比如 你沒有食物

  • property rights of individual.

    沒有住處 這是需要幫助的情況

  • The property rights are established and enforced by the government,

    因此需要是一回事 應得是另一回事

  • which is a democratic government, and we have representatives

    確實

  • to enforce those rights.

    好的 誰想回應?

  • If you live in a society that operates under those rules,

  • then it should be up to the government to decide how

    回到第一點 關於

  • those resources [inaudible] taxation are distributed because it is

    個人財產權的

  • through the consent of the government.

    個人財產權是確定的 由一個民主的

  • If you disagree with it, you don't have to live

    政府執行 我們還有參議院

  • in that society where that operates.

    來實施這些權利

  • All right, good, so, and tell me your name.

    如果你生活在一個由這些規則制約著的社會中

  • Raul.

    那麼應該由政府決定

  • Raul is pointing out, actually, Raul is invoking point number two.

    通過徵稅獲得的資源該如何分配 因為這

  • If the taxation is by the consent of the governed,

    經過政府的允許

  • it's not coerced. It's legitimate.

    如果你不同意 你不必住在

  • Bill Gates and Michael Jordan are citizens of the United States.

    受到規章限制的社會

  • They get to vote for congress. They get to vote their

    好的 很好 那麼告訴我你的名字

  • policy convictions just like everybody else.

    我叫Raul

  • Who would like to take that one on? John?

    Raul正指出 實際上 Raul支持的是觀點2

  • Basically, what the libertarians are objecting to in this case is

    如果徵稅經過政府部門的允許

  • the middle 80 percent deciding what the top ten percent

    就不是強制 是合法的

  • are doing for the bottom ten percent.

    比爾·蓋茨和邁克爾·喬丹都是美國的公民

  • Wait, wait, wait, John. Majority.

    他們都能在議會上投票 就像其他人一樣

  • Don't you believe in democracy?

    他們為自己支持的政策投票

  • Well, right, but at some point...

    誰還想接著說? John?

  • Don't you believe in, I mean, you say 80 percent,

    基本上在這種情況下 自由意志論者反對的是

  • 10 percent majority. Majority rule is what?

    中間的80%來判定上層的10%

  • The majority.

    為底層的10%的做出的貢獻

  • Exactly, but...

    等等 等等 John 大多數

  • In a democracy. Aren't you for democracy?

    你相信民主嗎?

  • Yes, I'm for democracy, but

    呃 對的 但是在某些方面...

  • Hang on, hang on, hang on.

    難道你不信 我是說 你說的80%

  • Democracy and mob rule aren't the same thing.

    10%多數 大多數人的原則是什麼?

  • Mob rule?

    人數多

  • Mob rule, exactly.

    沒錯 但是...

  • In an open society you have a recourse to address that

    在民主國家 難道你不支持民主?

  • through your representatives.

    不是 我支持民主 但是...

  • And if the majority of the consent of those who are governed

    繼續 繼續

  • doesn't agree with you, then you know,

    民主和暴民統治不是一碼事

  • you're choosing to live in a society and you have to operate

    暴民統治?

  • under what the majority the society concludes.

    沒錯 暴民統治

  • All right, Alex, on democracy.

    在一個開放的社會 你可以通過

  • What about that?

    由你選擇的代表來解決

  • The fact that I have one, you know, five hundred thousandth

    如果大多數執政者都同意

  • of the vote for one representative in congress is not the same thing

    卻和你的意見產生了分歧 那你知道的

  • as my having the ability to decide for myself how

    你選擇了在社會生存 你必須

  • to use my property rights.

    服從多數人和社會的決定

  • I'm a drop in the bucket and, you know, well...

    好吧 Alex 談談民主

  • You might lose the vote.

    那怎麼樣?

  • Exactly.

    據我所知 你懂嗎 千分之五百的的選票

  • And they might take...

    對於一個國會議員而言不代表

  • And I will. I mean,

    其有能力自己決定

  • I don't have the decision right now of whether or not

    如何使用他的產權

  • to pay taxes.

    我就像是滄海一粟 你知道 呃...

  • If I don't, I get locked in jail or they tell me to get out of the country.

    你有很可能輸掉選舉

  • But, Alex, Alex, let me make a small case for democracy.

    確實

  • And see what you would say.

    他們可能需要

  • Why can't you, we live in a democratic society with

    我會的 我是說

  • freedom of speech.

    目前我仍沒決定

  • Why can't you take to the Hustings, persuade your fellow citizens

    是否繳稅

  • that taxation is unjust and try to get a majority?

    如果不納稅 我會被關進監獄 或者被驅逐出境

  • I don't think that people should be, should have to

    但是 Alex Alex 讓我來舉個關於民主的小例子

  • convince 280 million others simply in order to exercise

    看看你會說什麼

  • their own rights, in order to not have their self ownership violated.

    為什麼你不 我們生活在言論自由的

  • I think people should be able to do that without having

    民主社會

  • to convince 280 million people.

    為什麼你不去競選現場 用稅收不公平這點

  • Does that mean you are against democracy as a whole?

    來說服同胞們 試圖獲得多數選票?

  • No, I...

    我認為人們不該這樣

  • I just believe in a very limited form of democracy

    為了行使自己的權利 為了自主權不被侵犯

  • whereby we have a constitution that severely limits the scope

    不應僅僅說服其他2.8億人

  • of what decisions can be made democratically.

    我認為不用說服2.8億人

  • All right, so you're saying that democracy is fine

    也應該能做到

  • except where fundamental rights are involved.

    你意思是不是說 你反對民主?

  • Yes.

    不 我...

  • And I think you could win.

    我只能信奉某些特定形式的民主

  • If you're going on the Hustings, let me add one element

    因為由於受憲法的限制

  • to the argument you might make.

    我們能民主做決定的機會大大減少了

  • May you could say put aside the economic debates, taxation.

    明白了 你意思是若非基本權利牽扯其中

  • Suppose the individual right to religious liberty were

    民主本身是沒有錯的

  • at stake, then, Alex, you could say, on the Hustings.

  • Surely, you would all agree that we shouldn't put the right to

    我覺得你能贏得辯論

  • individual liberty up to a vote.

    如果你走上演講台 允許我再幫你加一點論據

  • Yeah, that's exactly right, and that's why we have a

    你應該可以做到

  • constitutional amendments,

    或許你可以說 拋開那些經濟形勢辯論跟稅制不談

  • and why do we make it so hard to amend our constitution.

    假設個人權利與宗教信仰都岌岌可危了

  • So you would say that the right to private property,

    那麼 Alex站在演講台上就能說

  • the right of Michael Jordan to keep all the money he makes

    肯定地 你們都會覺得我們不能把個人自由的權利

  • at least to protect it from redistribution is the same

    放到一張選票上

  • kind of right with the same kind of weight as the right

    是 完全正確 這就是我們為什麼有

  • to freedom of speech, the right to religious liberty,

    憲法修訂案

  • rights that should trump what the majority wants.

    為什麼憲法修訂舉步維艱

  • Absolutely.

    所以 你的意思是 私人財產權

  • The reason why we have a right to free speech is because

    跟邁克爾·喬丹保留自己全部所得

  • we have a right to own ourselves, to exercise our voice

    至少保證它不被政府重分配的權利

  • in any way that we choose.

    同言論自由與宗教自由

  • All right, good.

    是同等份量的

  • All right, so there we...

    也不管大多數人的利益

  • All right, who would like to respond to that argument

    是的

  • about democracy being... Okay, up there. Stand up.

    我們之所以能做到言論自由

  • I think comparing religion economics it's not the same thing.

    是因為我們有權利做到自我

  • The reason why Bill Gates is able to make so much money is because

    可以暢所欲言

  • we live in an economically and socially stable society.

    明白了 不錯

  • And if the government didn't provide for the poor as ten percent

    好了 我們這裡...

  • as you say through taxation, then we would need more money

    好了 誰想反駁他的這一

  • for police to prevent crime and so, either way,

    民主論... 好 那位同學 站起來

  • there would be more taxes taken away to provide

    我覺得這同宗教經濟學沒有可比性

  • what you guys call the necessary things that the government provides.

    比爾·蓋茨之所以能賺那麼多錢 是因為

  • What's your name?

    我們生活在一個經濟穩定 社會穩定的社會裡

  • Anna.

    如果政府不通過稅收來幫助窮人 像你說的

  • Anna, let me ask you this.

    幫助這百分之十的人 那麼我們可能需要投入更多的錢

  • Why is the fundamental right to religious liberty different

    在警力上來抑制犯罪什麼的 總之

  • from the right Alex asserts as a fundamental right

    那樣需要更多的稅款花在

  • to private property and to keep what I earn?

    你們幾個所說的政府必須要做的事情上

  • What's the difference between the two?

    你叫什麼名字?

  • Because you wouldn't have...

    我叫Anna

  • You wouldn't be able to make money, you wouldn't be able to own property

    Anna 我問你

  • if there wasn't that socially, like, if society wasn't stable,

    為什麼個人權利跟宗教自由

  • and that's completely different from religion.

    同Alex說的保留私人財產的這一基本權利

  • That's like something personal, something that you can practice

    不一樣?

  • on your own in your own home or like me practicing my religion

    二者不同之處在哪兒?

  • is not going to affect the next person.

    因為你沒辦法...

  • But if I'm poor and I'm desperate,

    如果這個社會 就是 這個社會不夠穩定

  • like I might commit a crime to feed my family and that can affect others.

    你就沒辦法賺錢 沒辦法擁有財產

  • Okay, good, thank you.

    這一點完全不同於宗教

  • Would it be wrong for someone to steal a loaf of bread

    宗教更私人一些 是你在自己家

  • to feed his starving family? Is that wrong?

    自己能做的事 或者說我個人的宗教信仰

  • I believe that it is. This is...

    不會影響到別人

  • Let's take a quick poll of the three of you.

    但是如果我很窮 絕望了

  • - You say yes. - Yes, it is wrong.

    我可能會通過犯罪來養活我的家人 這樣就影響到別人了

  • John?

    知道了 好 謝謝

  • It violates property rights. It's wrong.

    如果一個人為了養活他飢餓的一家人

  • Even to save a starving family?

    去偷一條麵包 對還是錯? 他做錯了嗎?

  • I mean there are definitely other ways around that

    我覺得是錯的 這是...

  • and by justifying, no, hang on, hang on,

    我們來對你們三個做個小調查

  • before you laugh at me.

    - 你認為這是錯的 - 是 是錯的

  • Before justifying the act of stealing,

    John呢?

  • you have to look at violating the right that we've already agreed exists,

    它侵犯了財產權 是錯的

  • the right of self possession and the possession of, I mean,

    即使是為了拯救飢餓的一家人?

  • your own things.

    我意思是肯定還有別的方法

  • We agree on property rights.

    要辯護的話 停 等下 等下

  • All right, we agree at stealing.

    在你笑我之前

  • Yeah, we agree at stealing.

    在為偷竊行為辯護之前

  • So property rights is not the issue.

    你要想想我們已經確定存在的某些侵權行為

  • All right, but...

    自主 和 我是說

  • So why is it wrong to steal even to feed your starving family?

    擁有你自己東西的權利

  • Sort of the original argument that I made in the very first

    我們已對財產權達成共識

  • question you asked.

    明白 我們知道這是偷竊

  • The benefits of an action don't justify, don't make the action just.

    對 我們知道這是偷竊

  • Do what, what would you say, Julia?

    現在我們說的不是財產權的問題

  • Is it all right to steal a loaf of bread to feed a

    好了 但是...

  • starving family or to steal a drug that your child needs to survive?

    我問的是 為什麼即使偷竊是為了養活飢餓的一家人也有錯?

  • I think, I'm okay with that, honestly.

    跟之前剛開始我回答你的那個問題

  • Even from the libertarian standpoint,

    差不多

  • I think that, okay, saying that you can just take money

    行為獲得的利益不足以為此行為辯護 不能讓此行為變公正

  • arbitrarily from people who have a lot to go to this pool

    Julia 你呢 你是怎麼想的?

  • of people who need it, but you have an individual

    為了養活飢餓的一家人去偷一條麵包

  • who's acting on their own behalf to kind of save themselves and then

    或者是 為了你危在旦夕的孩子去偷藥 是對還是錯?

  • I think you said they, for any idea like self possession,

    我覺得 說實話 我覺得不算錯

  • they are also in charge of protecting themselves and keeping themselves

    即使是從自由意志論者的角度出發

  • alive so, therefore, even for a libertarian standpoint,

    我覺得 不算錯 你可以專橫地從富人那裡

  • that might be okay.

    弄來錢給需要錢的窮人花

  • All right, that's good, that's good.

    但那也是個人

  • All right, what about number three up here?

    從自己的利益出發 類似於拯救自己

  • Isn't it the case that the successful,

    我想你說過 某種意義上來說這也是自主

  • the wealthy, owe a debt.

    他們是在保護自己 讓自己生存下去

  • They didn't do that all by themselves.

    所以 即使是從自由意志論者的角度來看

  • They had to cooperate with other people that they owe a debt

    也不算錯

  • to society and that that's expressed in taxation.

    好 不錯 不錯

  • You wanna take that on, Julia?

    好了 那上面的第三條要怎麼解釋呢?

  • Okay, this one, I believe that there is not a debt to society

    是不是成功者

  • in the sense that how did these people become wealthy?

    富人 欠社會的呢

  • They did something that society valued highly.

    錢不是他們自己憑空造出來的

  • I think that society has already been giving, been providing for them...

    他們得需要與他人合作 所以說他們是不是欠社會一個人情

  • if anything, I think it's... everything is cancelled out.

    通過繳稅來還這人情呢

  • They provided a service to society and society responded by somehow

    你想說點什麼嗎 Julia?

  • they got their wealth, so I think that...

    好 關於這點 我不認為

  • So be concrete.

    富人欠社會人情

  • In the case of Michael Jordan, some...

    他們的成就對社會很有價值

  • I mean, to illustrate your point.

    我覺得社會已經接受 為他們...

  • There were people who helped him make the money, the teammates,

    如果有什麼的話 我覺得是... 二者已經抵消了

  • the coach, people who taught him how to play.

    富人們服務於社會 社會以財富

  • But they've... you're saying, but they've all been paid for their services.

    回饋他們 所以我覺得...

  • Exactly, and society derived a lot of benefit and pleasure from watching

    我們具體來說下

  • Michael Jordan play.

    結合邁克爾·喬丹的例子 來...

  • I think that that's how he paid his debt to society.

    通過這一例子來說明你的觀點

  • All right, good.

    他能賺那麼多錢 有很多人的幫助 他的隊友

  • Who would, anyone likes to take up that point? Yes.

    教練 教他打球的人

  • I think that there's a problem here with that we're assuming

    但是 他們... 你說他們是有償服務的

  • that a person has self possession when they live in a society.

    很對 而且社會大眾觀看邁克爾·喬丹的比賽又衍生出

  • I feel like when you live in a society, you give up that right.

    許多利益與歡樂

  • I mean, technically, if I want to personally go out and kill someone

    我認為他就是這麼回饋社會的

  • because they offend me, that is self possession.

    好 不錯

  • Because I live in a society I cannot do that.

    誰想反駁這一觀點? 你

  • I think it's kind of equivalent to say because I have more money,

    我認為我們假設生活在社會中的個人

  • I have resources that can save people's lives,

    有自主權是不對的

  • is it not okay for the government to take that from me?

    我覺得你生於社會之中 就放棄了那個權利

  • Self possession only to a certain extent because I'm living in a society

    我意思是 理論上來說 如果我出去

  • where I have to take account of the people around me.

    殺了那個冒犯過我的人 這也是自主

  • So are you question, what's your name?

    但因為我生於社會之中 我就不能那麼做

  • Victoria.

    我覺得這跟我錢比較多

  • Victoria, are you questioning the fundamental premise of self possession?

    有能力救別人一樣

  • Yes.

    政府剝奪了我這一權利不對嗎?

  • I think that you don't really have self possession

    自主權要有限制 因為我生活在社會之中

  • if you choose to live in a society because you cannot just discount

    要顧及到其他人

  • the people around you.

    所以你是在置疑 你叫什麼名字?

  • All right, I want to quickly get the response of the libertarian

    我叫Victoria

  • team to the last point.

    Victoria 你是在置疑自主權的前提嗎?

  • The last point builds on, well, maybe it builds on Victoria's

  • suggestion that we don't own ourselves because it says that Bill Gates

    我覺得如果你選擇生活在社會中

  • is wealthy, that Michael Jordan makes a huge income,

    就不算是真正意義上的自主 因為你不能

  • isn't wholly their own doing.

    漠視周圍人的存在

  • It's the product of a lot of luck and so we can't claim that they

    好了 我想趕緊聽聽自由意志論者隊

  • morally deserve all the money they make.

    對最後一點的看法

  • Who wants to reply to that? Alex?

    最後一點建立在 有可能是建立在Victoria的觀點之上

  • You certainly could make the case that it is not...

    她說我們並不算擁有自我 因為她說比爾·蓋茨

  • their wealth is not appropriate to the goodness in their hearts,

    很有錢 邁克爾·喬丹賺的很多

  • but that's not really the morally relevant issue.

    但那些並不是全靠他們自己辛勤所得

  • The point is that they have received what they have through

    是好運連連的產物 所以從道義上來說 我們不能說

  • the free exchange of people who have given them their holdings,

    他們值得賺那麼多錢

  • usually in exchange for providing some other service

    誰想反駁這點? Alex

  • Good enough.

    當然你可以找理由說這財富不是...

  • I want to try to sum up what we've learned from this discussion,

    他們的善良襯不上他們的財富

  • but, first, let's thank John, Alex, and Julia for a really wonderful job.

    但這並不是真正意義上與道義相關的事情

  • Toward the end of the discussion just now Victoria challenged

    而是他們的所得是通過

  • the premise of this line of reasoning that's libertarian logic.

    人與人之間的自由交換得來的 一些人把自己的所得給他們

  • Maybe, she suggested, we don't own ourselves after all.

    換來其它服務

  • If you reject the libertarian case against redistribution,

    很好

  • there would seem to be an incentive to break in to the libertarian line

    我想總結一下我們從這次討論學到了什麼

  • of reasoning at the earliest, at the most modest level,

    但是 首先 讓我們感謝John Alex以及Julia 謝謝他們的精彩辯論

  • which is why a lot of people disputed that taxation

    剛才臨近討論尾聲 Victoria置疑

  • is morally equivalent to forced labor.

    提出自由意志論者這一邏輯的前提

  • But what about the big claim, the premise, the big idea

    她認為 也許我們連自己都不屬於自己

  • underlying the libertarian argument?

    如果你不接受自由意志論者反對資產再分配

  • Is it true that we own ourselves or can we do without that idea

    這可能會成為我們最早提到的

  • and still avoid what libertarians want to avoid creating a society

    打破自由意志論者底線的刺激源

  • in an account of justice where some people can be just used

    這也是為什麼很多人爭辯說

  • for the sake of other people's welfare or even for the sake of the general good?

    繳稅無異於強迫勞動

  • Libertarians combat the utilitarian idea of using people as means

    但行動自由者辯論的主題跟前提

  • for the collective happiness by saying the way to put a stop

    又是什麼呢?

  • to that utilitarian logic of using persons is to resort to

    我們擁有自我嗎 或者說我們不管它

  • the intuitively powerful idea that we are the proprietors

    但可以仍然反對自由意志論者想要避免

  • of our own person.

    創造一個為他人謀福利

  • That's Alex and Julia and John and Robert Nozick.

    對大多數人有好處的社會嗎?

  • What are the consequences for a theory of justice

    自由意志論者說功利主義利用他人謀取福利

  • and in account of rights of calling into question

    是建立在我們是自己的主人這一基礎上

  • the idea of self possession?

    他們以此來反駁功利主義

  • Does it mean that we're back to utilitarianism and using people

    把人當作為大眾

  • and aggregating preferences and pushing the fat man off the bridge?

    謀福利的工具

  • Nozick doesn't himself fully develop the idea of self possession.

    這是Alex Julia跟John 還有羅伯特·諾齊克的想法

  • He borrows it from an earlier philosopher, John Locke.

    如果有一套公正理論與權利看法

  • John Locke accounted for the rise of private property from the state

    置疑自主這一想法

  • of nature by a chain of reasoning very similar to the one that Nozick

    會怎樣呢?

  • and the libertarians use.

    是不是意味著我們成了功利主義者

  • John Locke said private property arises because when we mix our labor with things,

    利用他人 累加偏愛 把那個胖子推下橋去?

  • unowned things, we come to aquire a property right in those things.

    諾齊克自己沒有完全發展這一自主理論

  • And the reason?

    他借鑒了早先的哲學家 約翰.洛克的思想

  • The reason is that we own our own labor,

    約翰·洛克解釋自然狀態下私人財產獲得的推理鏈

  • and the reason for that?

    同諾齊克與自由意志論者秉承的一點

  • We are the proprietors, the owners of our own person.

    十分相似

  • And so in order to examine the moral force of the libertarian claim

    約翰·洛克說私人財產的獲得是我們把自己的勞動力同事物相結合產生的

  • that we own ourselves, we need to turn to

    未曾擁有的事物 我們對這些事物有產權

  • the English political philosopher, John Locke, and examine his account

    原因是什麼呢?

  • of private property and self ownership and that's what we'll do next time.

    因為我們的勞動力是自己的

When we finished last time,

--==聖城家園SCG字幕組bbs.cnscg.com==-- 僅供翻譯交流使用, 禁止用於商業用途

字幕與單字

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋