On the face of it, Locke is a powerful ally of the libertarian.

--==聖城家園SCG字幕組bbs.cnscg.com==-- 協調: 飛天宇 MAXの依依 時間軸：MAXの依依 翻譯: 冷兔子 長路獨行 XQ 校對: 扎扎LU

First, he believes, as libertarians today maintain,

哈佛大學 Michael Sandel主講

that there are certain fundamental individual rights that are so important

《公正:該如何做是好?》

that no government, even a representative government,

"這裡是我的地盤"

even a democratically elected government, can override them.

今天我們來學習John Locke的理論

Not only that, he believes that those fundamental rights include

乍看起來 Locke是自由意志論的忠實擁護者

a natural right to life, liberty, and property,

首先 他相信 正如當今的自由論者所堅持的

and furthermore he argues that the right to property

有一些基本的人權是很重要的

is not just the creation of government or of law.

因此所有政府 無論是代議政府

The right to property is a natural right in the sense

還是民主選舉政府 都不能凌駕於這些權利之上

that it is prepolitical.

不僅如此 他認為這些基本權利還包括

It is a right that attaches to individuals as human beings,

生命權 自由權以及財產權 三大自然權利

even before government comes on the scene,

而且他還認為財產權

even before parliaments and legislatures

並非政府或法律的產物

enact laws to define rights and to enforce them.

而是自然權利

Locke says in order to think about what it means to have a natural right,

是前政治性的

we have to imagine the way things are

它是附屬於人類個體的權利 它的出現

before government, before law, and that's what Locke means

甚至早於政府的出現

by the state of nature.

甚至在議會以及立法機關開始

He says the state of nature is a state of liberty.

制定法律來定義並執行權利之前

Human beings are free and equal beings.

Locke說 為了弄明白擁有自然權利意味著什麼

There is no natural hierarchy.

我們需要想像一下在政府 法律出現之前

It's not the case that some people are born to be kings

事情是怎樣的 這也是Locke關於

and others are born to be serfs.

自然狀態的定義

We are free and equal in the state of nature and yet,

他認為自然狀態就是一種自由狀態

he makes the point that there is a difference between

人類都是自由平等的

a state of liberty and a state of license.

不存在自然的等級制度

And the reason is that even in the state of nature,

沒有人生來就是國王

there is a kind of law.

也沒有人天生是農奴

It's not the kind of law that legislatures enact.

在自然狀態中 我們是自由平等的

It's a law of nature. And this law of nature constrains

他強調說自由狀態與許可狀態

what we can do even though we are free,

之間是存在差異的

even though we are in the state of nature.

因為 即使在自然狀態下

Well what are the constraints?

也有法律的存在

The only constraint given by the law of nature

這種法律不是立法者制定的那種法律

is that the rights we have, the natural rights we have

而是自然法則 它對我們的行為進行約束

we can't give up nor can we take them

即使我們是自由的

from somebody else.

即使我們處於自然狀態

Under the law of nature, I'm not free to take somebody else's

那麼約束是什麼呢?

life or liberty or property, nor am I free to take

自然法則的約束

my own life or liberty or property.

是源於我們所有的自然權利

Even though I am free, I'm not free to violate the law of nature.

我們不能放棄這一權利 也不能

I'm not free to take my own life or to sell my self into slavery

剝奪他人的這一權利

or to give to somebody else arbitrary absolute power over me.

在自然法則之下 我不能隨意剝奪他人的

So where does this constraint, you may think it's a fairly

生命 自由或者財產 我也不能隨意

minimal constraint, but where does it come from?

剝奪自己的生命 自由或財產

Well, Locke tells us where it comes from

即使我是自由的 我也不能違反自然規律

and he gives two answers. Here is the first answer.

我不能隨意結束自己的生命 或把自己賣給他人做奴隸

"For men, being all the workmanship of one omnipotent,

或給他人任意的絕對權利來操控我

and infinitely wise maker," namely God,

這種約束 你可能覺得是非常

"they are His property, whose workmanship they are,

微不足道的 但它從何而來呢?

made to last during His, not one another's, pleasure."

Locke給出了

So one answer to the question is why can't I give up

兩個答案 這是第一個

my natural rights to life, liberty, and property is well,

"人類 由一位全能而又無比明智的智者

they're not, strictly speaking, yours.

創造出來的" 這位智者就是上帝

After all, you are the creature of God. God has a bigger property right in us,

"人來是上帝的財產

a prior property right.

是他創造出來延續個人快樂 而非讓人類彼此取悅的"

Now, you might say that's an unsatisfying,

所以我不能放棄

unconvincing answer, at least for those

生命 自由 財產這些自然權利

who don't believe in God.

因為嚴格說來 這些權利不是你的

What did Locke have to say to them? Well, here is where Locke appeals

畢竟 你是上帝的創造物 上帝對我們擁有更大的財產權

to the idea of reason and this is the idea,

優先的財產權

that if we properly reflect on what it means to be free,

你們可能會覺得這個答案不能令人滿意

we will be led to the conclusion that freedom can't just be a matter

難以令人信服 至少對

of doing whatever we want.

不信上帝的人來說是這樣

I think this is what Locke means when he says, "The state of nature

那麼Locke如何對這些人解釋呢? Locke是這樣闡述

has a law of nature to govern it which obliges everyone: and reason,

這一觀點的

which is that law, teaches mankind who will but consult it

如果我們仔細思考一下自由意味著什麼

that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another

我們就會明白 自由並不是

in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."

隨心所欲

This leads to a puzzling paradoxical feature of Locke's

我想Locke的以下這段話也足以表明態度 "自然狀態

account of rights.

用自然法則來約束每個人: 理性

It's the idea that our natural rights are unalienable.

也就是法律 教導人類

What does "unalienable" mean? It's not for us to alienate them

所有人都是平等獨立的 沒有人能傷害或破壞

or to give them up, to give them away, to trade them away, to sell them.

他人的生命 健康 自由或財產"

Consider an airline ticket. Airline tickets are nontransferable.

這使Locke對權利的說明

Or tickets to the Patriots or to the Red Sox.

看似自相矛盾

Nontransferable tickets are unalienable.

那就是我們的自然權利是不可剝奪的

I own them in the limited sense that I can use them for myself,

"不可剝奪"是什麼意思? 就是說 我們不能讓與

but I can't trade them away. So in one sense, an unalienable right,

放棄 轉讓 買賣這些自然權利

a nontransferable right makes something I own less fully mine.

比如機票 機票是不可轉讓的

But in another sense of unalienable rights,

又或者是愛國者或紅襪隊的比賽門票

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

不可轉讓的門票是不可剝奪的

or a right to be unalienable makes it more deeply,

狹義上 我擁有他們 我可以使用他們

more profoundly mine, and that's Locke's sense

但我卻不能轉讓買賣他們 所以某種意義上 不可剝奪權

of unalienable.

不可轉讓權使我並不能完全擁有一樣東西

We see it in the American Declaration of Independence.

但在另一意義上 不可剝奪權

Thomas Jefferson drew on this idea of Locke.

尤其當我們考慮到生命 自由和財產時

Unalienable rights to life, liberty, and as Jefferson amended Locke,

一項不可剝奪的權利意味著這項權利完全地

to the pursuit of happiness. Unalienable rights.

絕對地屬於我 這就是Locke關於

Rights that are so essentially mine

不可剝奪的理解

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

在美國獨立宣言中也可以看到這一點

So these are the rights we have in the state of nature

Thomas Jefferson引用了Locke的這一觀點

before there is any government.

不可剝奪的生命權 自由權 Jefferson修正了Locke的觀點

In the case of life and liberty, I can't take my own life.

加上了追求幸福的權利 不可剝奪的權利

I can't sell myself into slavery any more than I can take

這些權利本質上屬於我

somebody else's life or take someone else

所以我不能買賣或者放棄他們

as a slave by force.

這些就是在政府出現之前 自然狀態中

But how does that work in the case of property?

我們擁有的權利

Because it's essential to Locke's case that private property can arise

生命和自由 我不能結束自己的生命

even before there is any government.

我不能自易為奴 正如我不能

How can there be a right to private property

奪取他人生命或用暴力

even before there is any government?

易他人為奴

Locke's famous answer comes in Section 27.

但對於財產權又是如何解釋呢?

"Every man has a property in his own person.

因為在Locke的思想中 至關重要的一點就是私人財產

This nobody has any right to but himself."

在政府出現之前就有了

"The labor of his body and the work of his hands,

怎麼會在政府出現之前就有

we may say, are properly his."

私人財產權呢?

So he moves, as the libertarians later would move,

Locke著名的回答見於第27部分

from the idea that we own ourselves, that we have property in our persons

"每個人都有自己的個人財產

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

任何人都無權動用 唯有他自己"

And from that to the further claim that whatever we mix our labor with

"自身的勞動力以及勤勞的雙手

that is un-owned becomes our property.

可以說 都是他的"

"Whatever he removes out of the state that nature has provided,

隨之發展 正如自由意志者從

and left it in, he has mixed his labor with,

我們擁有自己 即我們擁有自己個人的財產這一觀點

and joined it to something that is his own, and thereby

發展出與此緊密相關的另一觀點 即我們擁有個人勞動力

makes it his property."

並又從這一點引出更深遠的結論 那就是我們將自己的勞動力

Why? Because the labor is the unquestionable property

和不屬於我們的東西相結合 就形成了財產

of the laborer and therefore, no one but the laborer

"不管他從自然中索取

can have a right to what is joined to or mixed with his labor.

或是給予 他都付出了自己的勞動

And then he adds this important provision,

使之成為自己所屬

"at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others."

因此這就是他的財產"

But we not only acquire our property in the fruits of the earth,

為什麼? 因為勞動是勞動者無可置疑的財產

in the deer that we hunt, in the fish that we catch

因此 只有勞動者

but also if we till and plow and enclose the land and grow potatoes,

有權將自己的勞動加入或和其他東西相結合

we own not only the potatoes but the land, the earth.

然後他加了這樣一條很重要的規定

"As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates

"至少還與其他人仍有足夠好的共性存在"

and can use the product of, so much is his property.

但我們收穫的不僅是從泥土中長出的水果

He by his labor encloses it from the commons.

獵到的鹿 捕到的魚

So the idea that rights are unalienable seems to distance

而且 我們翻地 犁地 圈地來種植土豆

Locke from the libertarian.

我們有的不僅是土豆 還擁有那塊土地

Libertarian wants to say we have an absolute property right

"一個人耕種 培育了多少土地

in ourselves and therefore, we can do with ourselves

並且可以擁有這塊土地上生長出的果實 這些都是他的財產

whatever we want.

他通過自己的勞動將其同其他土地區分開來

Locke is not a sturdy ally for that view.

所以似乎權利是不可剝奪的這一思想將Locke

In fact, he says if you take natural rights seriously,

和自由論者區分開來

you'll be led to the idea that there are certain constraints

自由論者想說 我們有絕對的財產權

on what we can do with our natural rights,

因此 我們可以做

constraints given either by God or by reason reflecting

任何想做的事

on what it means really to be free, and really to be free

Locke並不完全贊同這一觀點

means recognizing that our rights are unalienable.

實際上 他認為如果將自然權利看得太重

So here is the difference between Locke and the libertarians.

就會讓人們覺得行使自然權利時

But when it comes to Locke's account of private property,

會受到一定的約束

he begins to look again like a pretty good ally

這種約束可能來自上帝 或者來自

because his argument for private property begins

對什麼是真正的自由的反思 真正的自由意味著

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

承認我們的權利是不可剝奪的

and therefore, of our labor, and therefore,

所以這就是Locke和自由意志論者的不同之處

of the fruits of our labor, including not only

但一涉及到他對私有財產的說明

the things we gather and hunt in the state of nature

他就又變得像是自由意志論的忠實擁護者

but also we acquire our property right in the land that we enclose

因為他對私有財產的論據始於這一思想

and cultivate and improve.

我們對自己的人身

There are some examples that can bring out the moral intuition

勞動 還有勞動果實

that our labor can take something that is unowned and make it ours,

擁有所有權 不僅包括

though sometimes, there are disputes about this.

在自然狀態下採集 打獵到所得

There is a debate among rich countries and developing countries

還包括我們對圈起 培育 耕作的

about trade-related intellectual property rights.

土地的所有權

It came to a head recently over drug patent laws.

勞動使原本不屬於我們的東西變為己有

Western countries, and especially the United States say,

儘管有時這點存在爭議

"We have a big pharmaceutical industry

但是有一些實例的確會牽扯道德問題

that develops new drugs.

貿易有關的知識產權問題

We want all countries in the world to agree

在發達國家與發展中國家之間仍有分歧

to respect the patents."

近期 因藥品專利法問題情勢又趨緊張

Then, there came along the AIDS crisis in South Africa,

西方國家 尤其是美國認為

and the American AIDS drugs were hugely expensive,

"我們發達的製藥工業

far more than could be afforded by most Africans.

生產新藥

So the South African government said,

我們希望所有的國家都能同意

"We are going to begin to buy a generic version of the AIDS

遵守專利權法"

antiretroviral drug at a tiny fraction of the cost

之後 南非爆發了艾滋危機

because we can find an Indian manufacturing company

美國的艾滋藥物太貴

that figures out how the thing is made and produces it,

非洲人根本就買不起

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

因此南非政府說

if we don't respect that patent."

"我們要低價購買非專利的艾滋

And then the American government said,

抗逆轉錄病毒藥物

"No, here is a company that invested research

因為我們找到一家印度製藥公司

and created this drug.

瞭解這種藥的成分 可以生產

You can't just start mass producing these drugs without paying

價錢又低 如果不遵守專利權法

a licensing fee."

就可以救更多人"

And so there was a dispute and the pharmaceutical company

美國政府這樣回答

sued the South African government to try to prevent their buying

"不 有一個公司在投資研究

the cheap generic, as they saw it, pirated version of an AIDS drug.

生產這種藥

And eventually, the pharmaceutical industry gave in and said,

沒有付授權使用費 你就不能大規模地

"All right, you can do that."

生產這種藥"

But this dispute about what the rules of property should be,

因此產生了糾紛 製藥公司

of intellectual property of drug patenting, in a way,

將南非政府告上法庭 試圖阻止他們買

is the last frontier of the state of nature because among nations

這種便宜的無專利權 盜版的艾滋藥品

where there is no uniform law of patent rights and property rights,

最終 製藥公司做出讓步並說

it's up for grabs until, by some act of consent,

"好吧 你們可以買"

some international agreement, people enter into some settled rules.

但這場關於財產權的規則是什麼

What about Locke's account of private property

藥物專利權的規則是什麼的糾紛 在某種程度上

and how it can arise before government and before law

是自然狀態的最後一塊領域 因為在國與國之間

comes on the scene? Is it successful?

沒有統一的專利法和產權法

How many think it's pretty persuasive?

只是公開投標 直到一致同意後出台

Raise your hand.

一些國際協定 人們才開始有確定的規則

How many don't find it persuasive?

Locke關於財產權的說明如何

All right, let's hear from some critics.

財產權怎樣才能在政府和法律

What is wrong with Locke's account of how private property can arise

出現之前出現呢? 它成功了嗎?

without consent? Yes?

有多少人認為它很令人信服?

Yes, I think it justifies European cultural norms as far as

請舉手

when you look at how Native Americans may not have cultivated American land,

有多少人覺得它沒有說服力?

but by their arrival in the Americas, that contributed

好吧 讓我們來聽聽反對者怎麼說

to the development of America, which wouldn't have otherwise

Locke對於私人財產可以不經許可而產生的描述

necessarily happened then or by that specific group.

有何不妥呢? 你來?

So you think that this is a defense, this defense of private property in land...

好 我覺得它將歐洲文化的行為標準正當化了

Yes, because it complicates original acquisition

舉例來說 可能美洲土著人並沒有耕種美洲的土地

if you only cite the arrival of foreigners that cultivated the land.

但他們的到來 使美洲

- I see. And what's your name? - Rochelle.

得以發展 可那並不是

- Rochelle? - Yes.

在特定時間或是特定人群發生的必然事件

Rochelle says this account of how property arises

所以你認為這是一種辯護 對土地私有財產的辯護...

would fit what was going on in North America during the time

對 因為如果你只是引入耕種土地的外來者的話

of the European settlement.

會使原始取得變得複雜

Do you think, Rochelle, that it's a way of defending

- 我明白了 你叫什麼名字? - Rochelle

the appropriation of the land?

- Rochelle? - 對

Indeed, because I mean, he is also justifying

Rochelle說這種對於財產產生的描述

the glorious revolutions.

符合歐洲殖民時期

I don't think it's inconceivable that he is also justifying

北美洲發生的情況

colonization as well.

Rochelle 你是否認為這是在為

Well, that's an interesting historical suggestion

土地佔有辯護?

and I think there is a lot to be said for it.

的確 因為我是指 他也是在正當化

What do you think of the validity of his argument though?

光榮革命

Because if you are right that this would justify the taking

說他也正當化了殖民化

of land in North America from Native Americans

也不足為奇

who didn't enclose it, if it's a good argument,

嗯 那是很有趣的歷史見解

then Locke's given us a justification for that.

我也覺得這有很多可取之處

If it's a bad argument, then Locke's given us a mere

那麼他的論點的合法性你怎麼認為?

rationalization that isn't morally defensible.

因為如果你是對的 那將正當化

- I'm leaning to the second one... - You're leaning toward the second one.

從沒有圈地美洲土著人那裡

But that's my opinion as well.

奪取土地的行為 如果那是一個正論點

All right, well, then, let's hear if there is

那麼Locke給了我們一個正當的理由

a defender of Locke's account of private property,

如果那是一個反論點 那麼Locke僅僅給了我們

and it would be interesting if they could address Rochelle's worry

一個道德上不可辯解的強辯

that this is just a way of defending the appropriation

- 我傾向第二個說法... - 你傾向第二個說法

of land by the American colonists from the Native Americans

但那也是我的看法

who didn't enclose it.

好 那麼 讓我們看看有沒有Locke

Is there someone who will defend Locke on that point?

關於私人財產描述的辯護者

Are you going to defend Locke?

如果他們能夠解決Rochelle的憂慮

Like, you're accusing him of justifying the European

也就是說這是一種為美洲殖民者從未圈地的

basically massacre the Native Americans.

美洲土著人那裡奪取土地的行為的辯護

But who says he is defending it?

那將會很有趣

Maybe the European colonization isn't right.

有沒有人能在這一點上為Locke辯護?