Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • Today, we turn to John Locke.

    --==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

  • 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?

  • You know, maybe it's the state of war that he talked about

    你要為Locke辯護嗎?

  • in his Second Treatise, you know.

    好像 你在指責他正當化歐洲人

  • So the wars between the Native Americans and the colonists,

    從根本上對美洲土著人的屠殺

  • the settlers, that might have been a state of war that

    但誰說他在為其辯護呢?

  • we can only emerge from by an agreement or an act of consent

    也許歐洲殖民本身是不對的

  • and that's what would have been required fairly to resolve...

    想想 也許這是他在《再論政府》中所提到的

  • Yes, and both sides would have had to agree to it and carry it out

    戰爭狀態

  • and everything.

    那這場美洲土著人與殖民者 移民者的戰爭

  • - But what about when, what's your name? - Dan.

    可能是一種我們只能通過協議或者舉手表決來

  • But Dan, what about Rochelle says this argument in Section 27

    結束的戰爭狀態

  • and then in 32 about appropriating land,

    而那本來就應該公平地解決...

  • that argument, if it's valid, would justify the settlers' appropriating

    是的 雙方都需要同意並履行這種協議或行為

  • that land and excluding others from it,

    等等

  • you think that argument is a good argument?

    - 那是什麼時候呢 你的名字是? - Dan

  • Well, doesn't it kind of imply that the Native Americans

    可是Dan Rochelle所說的在第27和32節中

  • hadn't already done that?

    佔有土地的論點如何呢

  • Well, the Native Americans, as hunter-gatherers,

    那個論點 如果合理的話 將會正當化移民者

  • didn't actually enclose land.

    佔有土地並且將其他人排除在外的行為

  • So I think Rochelle is onto something there.

    你認為這是否是一個正論點?

  • - What I want to... - Go ahead, Dan.

    嗯 那不是有點暗示美洲土著人

  • At the same time, he is saying that just by picking

    沒有那樣做嗎?

  • an acorn or taking an apple or maybe killing a buffalo

    美洲土著人 像狩獵採集者

  • on a certain amount of land, that makes it yours

    並沒有真的把土地圈起來

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

    所以我認為Rochelle有些道理

  • So by that definition, maybe they didn't have fences

    - 我想要的說是... - 繼續 Dan

  • around little plots of land but didn't...

    同時 他還說只要在一定數量的土地上

  • They were using it.

    撿到一個橡實 或是拿一個蘋果 或是殺掉頭水牛

  • Yes. By Locke's definition, you can say...

    那土地就是你的

  • So maybe by Locke's definition, the Native Americans

    因為那是你的勞動 而你的勞動會把土地圈住

  • could have claimed a property right in the land itself.

    所以根據那個定義 也許他們沒在那些小土地上

  • Right, but they just didn't have Locke on their side, as she points out.

    放上圍欄 但不是說...

  • All right, good. Okay, that's good. One more defender of Locke. Go ahead.

    他們已經用了

  • Well, I mean, just to defend Locke,

    是的 根據Locke的定義 你可以說...

  • he does say that there are some times in which

    所以也許根據Locke的定義 美洲土著人

  • you can't take another person's land.

    可以宣稱對於土地的財產權

  • For example, you can't acquire a land that is common property so people,

    對 正如她所指出的 Locke並沒有站在他們那邊

  • in terms of the American Indians, I feel like they already have

    嗯 好 不錯 再來個Locke的辯護者 來吧

  • civilizations themselves and they were using land in common.

    我認為 只是為Locke辯護的話

  • So it's kind of like what an analogy to what he was talking about

    他的確說過有些時候

  • with like the common English property. You can't take land that

    你不能奪走另一個人的土地

  • everybody is sharing in common.

    例如 你不能獲得一塊作為共同財產的土地 所以人們

  • Oh, that's interesting. That's interesting.

    就美洲印第安人而言 我覺得他們已經有了

  • And also, you can't take land unless you make sure

    自己的文明 並且共同使用土地

  • that there is as much land as possible left for other people to take as well.

    所以那有些像他所說的與英國共同財產的

  • So if you're taking common, so you have to make sure

    類比 你不能拿走大家

  • that whenever you take land that there is enough left

    共同使用的土地

  • - for other people to use... - Right.

    哦 那很有趣 很有趣

  • That's just as good as the land that you took, so...

    而且 你不能佔有土地 除非你能保證

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

    有足夠的土地留下來給其他人去佔有

  • to private property in the earth is subject to the provision

    所以如果你要佔有公共土地 你必須保證

  • that there be as much and as good left for others.

    無論何時你佔有土地 都會有足夠的留下

  • - What's your name? - Right. I'm Feng.

    - 給其他人使用 - 對

  • So Feng, in a way, agrees with Dan that maybe there is

    還要和你拿走的土地一樣好 所以...

  • a claim within Locke's framework that could be developed on behalf

    沒錯 Locke說土地能否作為私有財產應該取決於

  • of the Native Americans. Here is the further question.

    是否有足夠多和足夠好的土地

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

    留給其他人

  • if it's something that we acquire even before we agree to government,

    - 你的名字是? - 對 我叫Feng

  • how does that right constrain what a legitimate government can do?

    Feng 在某種程度上 同意Dan所說的

  • In order, finally, to see whether Locke is an ally

    可以在Locke的框架內提出一個

  • or potentially a critic of the libertarian idea of the state,

    代表美洲土著人的要求 有一個更深層次的問題

  • we have to ask what becomes of our natural rights

    如果私人財產權利是自然的 而非協議性的

  • once we enter into society.

    如果這是一種在我們贊同政府前就獲得的東西

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

    這種權利如何約束一個合法政府的行為?

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

    最後 為了看出Locke自由主義者國家理念的

  • and by a system of laws, human laws.

    支持者還是潛在的反對者

  • But those human laws are only legitimate

    我們必須問一下 一旦我們進入社會

  • if they respect our natural rights, if they respect our unalienable rights

    我們的自然權利會變得怎樣

  • to life, liberty, and property. No parliament, no legislature,

    我們知道 通過表決進入社會 通過協議

  • however democratic its credentials, can legitimately violate

    脫離自然狀態 並通過一個人為法律系統

  • our natural rights.

    被大多數人支配

  • This idea that no law can violate our right to life, liberty, and property

    但只有當法律尊重我們的權利

  • would seem to support the idea of a government so limited

    尊重我們對於生命 自由 財產的不可剝奪的權利

  • that it would gladden the heart of the libertarian after all.

    它們才是合法的 沒有議會 沒有立法機關

  • But those hearts should not be so quickly gladdened because

    然而民主的憑證本身 可以合法地侵犯

  • even though for Locke, the law of nature persists

    我們的自然權利

  • once government arrives, even though Locke insists

    這種沒有法律可以侵犯生命 自由 財產權利的思想

  • on limited government, government limited by the end

    看似是對有限權力政府使

  • for which it was created, namely the preservation of property,

    自由論者快樂的思想的支持

  • even so, there is an important sense in which what counts as my property,

    但是他們不應該高興得那麼快

  • what counts as respecting my life and liberty

    因為對Locke來說 堅信自然法則

  • are for the government to define.

    而政府一旦出現 即使Locke堅持限權政府

  • That there be property, that there be respect

    但是創立政府的目的就是

  • for life and liberty is what limits government.

    保護財產

  • But what counts as respecting my life and respecting my property,

    即使那樣 有一個重要的觀念就是 什麼是我的財產

  • that is for governments to decide and to define.

    什麼是尊重我的生命和自由

  • How can that be?

    都有政府去定義

  • Is Locke contradicting himself or

    對財產的擁有 對生命 自由的尊重

  • is there an important distinction here?

    制約著政府

  • In order to answer that question, which will decide Locke's fit

    但是什麼是尊重我的生命 尊重我的財產

  • with the libertarian view, we need to look closely

    是由政府決定與定義的

  • at what legitimate government looks like for Locke,

    怎麼會這樣呢?

  • and we turn to that next time.

    是Locke自相矛盾還是其中有

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

    重要的區別呢?

  • would you pay your taxes?

    為了回答這個決定Locke是否與自由主義觀點一致的問題

  • I don't think so. I would rather have a system

    我們必須關注

  • personally that I could give money to exactly those sections

    對於Locke來說 合法政府是什麼樣的

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

    我們下節課再講

  • You'd rather be in the state of nature,

    下集預告

  • at least on April 15th.

    Nicola 如果你知道你不會被鋪

  • Last time, we began to discuss Locke's state of nature,

    你還會繳稅嗎?

  • his account of private property, his theory of legitimate government,

    我不這麼認為 就個人而言 我寧願有個系統

  • which is government based on consent and also limited government.

    讓我可以將錢交給那些我想

  • Locke believes in certain fundamental rights that constrain

    支持的政府部門而不是盲目地支持整個政府

  • what government can do, and he believes that those rights

    至少在4月15號

  • are natural rights, not rights that flow from law

    你願意處在自然狀態下

  • or from government.

    上次 我們開始議論Locke的自然狀態

  • And so Locke's great philosophical experiment

    他對私人財產的描述 他的合法政府的理論

  • is to see if he can give an account of how there could be a right

    即是合議政府也是限權政府

  • to private property without consent before government and legislators

    Locke相信那些約束政府行為的

  • arrive on the scene to define property.

    基本權利 他相信那些權利

  • That's his question. That's his claim.

    是自然權利 而非依靠

  • There is a way Locke argues to create property,

    政府或是法律

  • not just in the things we gather and hunt,

    而Locke的偉大哲學實驗

  • but in the land itself, provided there is enough

    是看他是否可以描述一種在政府和立法者

  • and as good left for others.

    對財產進行定義前

  • Today, I want to turn to the question of consent,

    就不需同意而存在的權利

  • which is Locke's second big idea.

    那就是他的問題 那就是他的主張

  • Private property is one; consent is the other.

    這就是Locke主張創造財產的一種方式

  • What is the work of consent?

    不只是我們收集和獵取的東西

  • People here have been invoking the idea of consent

    也包括土地 有足夠多和好的

  • since we began since the first week.

    留給別人

  • Do you remember when we were talking about

    今天 我想要轉到關於同意的問題

  • pushing the fat man off the bridge, someone said,

    也就是Locke的第二大思想

  • "But he didn't agree to sacrifice himself.

    私人財產是其中一個; 同意是另一個

  • It would be different if he consented."

    同意的作用是什麼?

  • Or when we were talking about the cabin boy,

    我們從第一周開始

  • killing and eating the cabin boy.

    就一直在援引同意的思想

  • Some people said, "Well, if they had consented

    你們是否記得我們談到

  • to a lottery, it would be different.

    把那個胖男人推下橋 有人說

  • Then it would be all right."

    "但是他沒有同意犧牲自己

  • So consent has come up a lot and here in John Locke,

    如果他同意那就不一樣了"

  • we have one of the great philosophers of consent.

    或者我們說到船艙服務員的時候

  • Consent is an obvious familiar idea in moral

    殺掉還吃了那個服務員

  • and political philosophy.

    有些人說 "嗯 要是他們同意

  • Locke says that legitimate government is government founded

    抽籤 那就不一樣了"

  • on consent and who, nowadays, would disagree with him?

    那樣就沒事了

  • Sometimes, when the ideas of political philosophers

    那同意出現了很多次 而對於John Locke

  • are as familiar as Locke's ideas about consent,

    我們擁有最偉大的同意哲學家

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

    同意在道德與政治哲學上

  • But there are some puzzles, some strange features

    意思明顯相近

  • of Locke's account of consent

    Locke說合法政府是建立在同意基礎上

  • as the basis of legitimate government

    而今 誰不同意他呢?

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

    有時 當政治哲學家關於同意的思想

  • One way of testing the plausibility of Locke's idea

    與Locke的思想相近時

  • of consent and also of probing some of its perplexities

    很難覺得他們有意義或者非常有趣

  • is to ask just what a legitimate government

    但有些謎團 作為合法政府的基礎

  • founded on consent can do, what are its powers

    某些Locke對於同意的描述的

  • according to Locke.

    奇怪的特點

  • Well, in order to answer that question,

    我今天想講一講

  • it helps to remember what the state of nature is like.

    測試Locke同意思想的可信性以及

  • Remember, the state of nature is the condition that

    探究其某些困惑的方式

  • we decide to leave, and that's what gives rise to consent.

    就是要問 對於Locke來說

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

    一個建立在同意上的政府可以做什麼

  • Well, what is Locke's answer to that question?

    它有什麼力量

  • He says there are some inconveniences in the state of nature

    嗯 為了回答這個問題

  • but what are those inconveniences?

    需要明白自然狀態是怎麼樣的

  • The main inconvenience is that everyone can enforce

    記住 自然的狀態是我們決定

  • the law of nature.

    離開的條件 而這也恰恰產生同意

  • Everyone is an enforcer, or what Locke calls

    為什麼不留在那裡? 究竟為什麼要為政府費心?

  • "the executor" of the state of nature, and he means executor literally.

    嗯 Locke對這個問題的答案是什麼?

  • If someone violates the law of nature,

    他說在自然狀態中有些不便

  • he is an aggressor. He is beyond reason

    而那些不便是什麼?

  • and you can punish him.

    主要的不便是每個人都可以

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

    執行自然法則

  • gradations of punishment in the state of nature.

    每個人都是執法者 或者Locke所稱的

  • You can kill him. You can certainly kill

    自然法則的"執行者" 就是字面意思的執行者

  • someone who comes after you, who tries to murder you.

    如果一個人違反自然法則

  • That's self defense.

    他就是一個侵略者 他超越了理性

  • But the enforcement power, the right to punish,

    你就可以懲罰他

  • everyone can do the punishing in the state of nature.

    而在自然狀態 你不需要對於懲罰的級別

  • And not only can you punish with death people

    太過小心或是仔細

  • who come after you seeking to take your life,

    你可以殺了他 你大可以殺了

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

    那些跟蹤你 想要謀害你的人

  • because that also counts as aggression against

    那是自我防禦

  • the law of nature.

    但是執法力量 懲罰的權利

  • If someone has stolen from a third party,

    每個人在自然狀態下都能進行懲罰

  • you can go after him. Why is this?

    你不但可以用死亡來懲罰

  • Well, violations of the law of nature are an act of aggression.

    跟蹤你想要奪你性命的人

  • There is no police force. There are no judges, no juries,

    你也可以懲罰一個想偷你東西的竊賊

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

    因為那也算是對自然法則

  • And Locke observes that when people are the judges

    的侵犯

  • of their own cases, they tend to get carried away,

    如果某人偷了別人的東西

  • and this gives rise to the inconvenience

    你可以追趕他 為什麼呢?

  • in the state of nature.

    違反自然法則是一種挑釁

  • People overshoot the mark. There is aggression.

    沒有警察部隊 沒有法官 沒有陪審團

  • There is punishment and before you know it,

    所以每個人都是自己案子的法官

  • everybody is insecure in the enjoyment of his or her

    並且Locke觀察到當人們作為自己案件的

  • unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

    法官時 他們總會失去理智

  • Now, he describes in pretty harsh and even grim terms

    而這就增加了

  • what you can do to people who violate the law of nature.

    自然狀態中的不便

  • "One may destroy a man who makes war upon him ...

    人們做得過分 有了侵犯

  • for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion.

    就有懲罰 不知不覺中

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

    每個人在享有不可剝奪的生命

  • listen to this, "and so may be treated as beasts of prey,

    自由和財產權時 都感到不安

  • those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to

    接著 他用相當嚴厲甚至是殘忍的措辭

  • destroy to you if you fall into their power", so kill them first.

    描述了對於侵犯自然法則的人 你該如何是好

  • So, what starts out as a seemingly benign state of nature

    "一個人可以將向他開戰的人毀滅...

  • where everyone is free and yet where there is a law

    同理 他也可以殺掉一頭狼或獅子

  • and the law respects people's rights, and those rights are so powerful

    這樣的人除了武力和暴力 再無其他規則"

  • that they're unalienable.

    聽聽這個 "也可以視他們為野獸

  • What starts out looking very benign, once you look closer,

    危險有害的動物 只要落入他們手中

  • is pretty fierce and filled with violence,

    對你就意味著毀滅" 所以先殺了他們

  • and that's why people want to leave.

    所以起初看來是良性的自然狀態

  • How do they leave? Well, here is where consent comes in.

    每個人都是自由的 還有一套法律

  • The only way to escape from the state of nature

    它尊重人們的權利 那些權利如此地強大

  • is to undertake an act of consent where you agree to give up

    以至他們不可剝奪

  • the enforcement power and to create a government

    開始看起來非常善良 仔細一看

  • or a community where there will be a legislature to make law

    卻相當地兇殘 充滿暴力

  • and where everyone agrees in advance, everyone who enters,

    所以人們想要離開

  • agrees in advance to abide by whatever the majority decides.

    他們如何離開? 好 這時同意出現了

  • But then the question, and this is our question

    逃離自然狀態的唯一方法

  • and here is where I want to get your views,

    就是你同意放棄

  • then the question is what powers, what can the majority decide?

    執行力 並創建一個政府

  • Now, here, it gets tricky for Locke because you remember

    或者社區 擁有一個立法機關來制定法律

  • alongside the whole story about consent and majority rule,

    在場的每個人事先協商好

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

    同意少數服從多數

  • these unalienable rights, and you remember,

    但是有個問題 也是我們著重討論的

  • they don't disappear when people join together to create a civil society.

    需要你們闡述自己的觀點

  • So even once the majority is in charge,

    問題就是 大多數人可以決定什麼權力?

  • the majority can't violate your inalienable rights,

    對於Locke來說有些棘手 因為你們記得

  • can't violate your fundamental right to life,

    除了同意和多數決定原則之外

  • liberty, and property.

    還有自然權利 自然法則

  • So here is the puzzle.

    和不可剝奪的權利 而且

  • How much power does the majority have?

    在人們創造文明社會時他們並沒有消失

  • How limited is the government created by consent?

    所以即使大多數人在管理

  • It's limited by the obligation on the part of the majority to respect

    他們也不能侵犯你不可剝奪的權利

  • and to enforce the fundamental natural rights of the citizens.

    也不能侵犯你對生命

  • They don't give those up. We don't give those up

    自由和財產的基本權利

  • when we enter government.

    因此問題就來了

  • That's this powerful idea taken over from Locke

    大多數人有多大權力?

  • by Jefferson in the Declaration. Unalienable rights.

    由同意創造的政府多有限?

  • So, let's go to our two cases. Remember Michael Jordan, Bill Gates,

    因為大多數人有義務尊重並確保公民基本自然權利

  • the libertarian objection to taxation for redistribution?

    因此 政府受到了限制

  • Well, what about Locke's limited government?

    他們沒有放棄那些權利 我們進入政府的時候

  • Is there anyone who thinks that Locke does give grounds

    沒有放棄那些權利

  • for opposing taxation for redistribution?

    那就是Jefferson在獨立宣言中從Locke那裡

  • Anybody? Go ahead.

    獲得的有力的思想 即不可剝奪的權利

  • If the majority rules that there should be taxation,

    我們來講兩個案例 記得喬丹 比爾蓋茨

  • even if the minority should still not have to be taxed

    還有為了重新分配而拒絕繳稅的自由主義吧?

  • because that's taking away property, which is one of the rights of nature.

    那Locke的有限政府如何呢?

  • - All right so, and what's your name? - Ben.

    有誰認為Locke為獲得重新分配反對繳稅

  • Ben. So if the majority taxes the minority

    而退卻了嗎?

  • without the consent of the minority

    有人嗎? 來

  • to that particular tax law, it does amount to a taking

    如果大多數人判定需要繳稅

  • of their property without their consent

    而少數人卻不繳稅

  • and it would seem that Locke should object to that.

    那就是自然權利之一 也就是財產權的剝奪

  • You want some textual support for your view,

    - 好吧 你的名字是? - Ben

  • for your reading of Locke, Ben?

    Ben 所以如果多數人在未得到

  • Sure.

    少數人對特定稅法同意的情況下

  • All right. I brought some along just in case you raised it.

    向少數人徵稅 那將造成沒有同意的情況下

  • If you have your texts, look at 138, passage 138.

    對他們一定數量的財產的奪取

  • "The supreme power," by which Locke means the legislature,

    並且看起來Locke應該對此加以否定

  • "cannot take from any man any part of his property

    你對Locke的理解和觀點

  • without his own consent, for the preservation of property

    需要文本支持嗎 Ben?

  • being the end of government and that for which men

    當然

  • enter into society, it necessarily supposes

    好 我怕你們會提及 所以帶來了一些資料

  • and requires that people should have property."

    如果你有課本 請看第138頁

  • That was the whole reason for entering society

    "至高無上的權利" Locke用它特指立法機關

  • in the first place, to protect the right to property.

    "在未得到其同意的情況下 不應該

  • And when Locke speaks about the right to property,

    奪走任何人的任何部分的財產 因為對財產的保護

  • he often uses that as a kind of global term for the whole category,

    是政府的目標以及人們

  • the right to life, liberty, and property.

    加入社會的目的 人們擁有財產是

  • So that part of Locke, that beginning of 138,

    應當的 也是必然的要求"

  • seems to support Ben's reading. But what about the part of 138,

    保護財產權利

  • if you keep reading, "Men, therefore, in society

    是最初進入社會的理由

  • having property, they have such a right to the goods,

    而當Locke說到財產權

  • which by the law of the community are theirs."

    他經常把它作為對生命 自由和財產權

  • Look at this.

    乃至整個範疇的通用術語

  • "And that no one can take from them without their consent."

    所以Locke的部分言論 138的開頭

  • And then at the end of this passage, he says,

    看起來支持了Ben的理解 但是138的另一部分呢

  • "So it's a mistake to think that the legislative power can do

    如果你繼續讀下去 "因此 社會中的人們

  • what it will and dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily

    擁有財產 根據社會的法律

  • or take any part of them at pleasure."

    他們享有物權"

  • Here's what's elusive.

    看這個

  • On the one hand, he says the government

    "因此在未經同意的情況下 任何人無權剝奪"

  • can't take your property without your consent.

    在這一章的結尾 他說

  • He is clear about that. But then he goes on to say,

    "所以認為擁有立法權

  • and that's the natural right to property.

    就可以恣意妄為

  • But then, it seems that property, what counts as property

    專橫跋扈 那就大錯特錯了"

  • is not natural but conventional

    這是難點

  • defined by the government.

    一方面 他說政府

  • "The goods of which by the law of the community are theirs."

    在沒有你同意的情況下 不能拿走你的財產

  • And the plot thickens if you look ahead to Section 140.

    他說的很明確 但接著他又說

  • In 140, he says, "Governments can't be supported

    那是自然財產權

  • without great charge.

    但是 看起來那所謂的財產

  • Government is expensive and it's fit that everyone

    並非來自自然而是來自政府

  • who enjoys his share of the protection

    的慣例規定

  • should pay out of his estate."

    "社會法律規定的物權屬於他們"

  • And then here is the crucial line. "But still, it must be

    而如果看第140節 情況更加複雜了

  • with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority,

    在140節 他說 "沒有巨大的消耗

  • giving it either by themselves,

    就無法支撐政府"

  • or through their representatives." So what is Locke actually saying?

    政府耗資巨大 但對於享受其保護

  • Property is natural in one sense but conventional in another.

    的人們來說

  • It's natural in the sense that we have a fundamental

    為此付出也並不過分"

  • unalienable right that there be property,

    這裡有一句關鍵轉折點 "但是仍然需要

  • that the institution of property exist and be respected

    他自己同意 例如 大多數人的同意

  • by the government.

    由本人

  • So an arbitrary taking of property would be a violation

    或者代表同意" 那Locke究竟在說什麼?

  • of the law of nature and would be illegitimate.

    財產一方面是自然的 但另一方面又是人為規定的

  • But it's a further question, here is the conventional

    我們擁有基本的 不可剝奪的權利

  • aspect of property, it's a further question

    即擁有財產

  • what counts as property, how it's defined and what counts

    財產制度存在 並受到政府尊重

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

    這是自然屬性

  • So the consent, here, we're coming back

    所以對財產的隨意奪取將是

  • to our question, what is the work of consent?

    對自然法則的背叛 而且是不合法的

  • What it takes for taxation to be legitimate

    但那是後話 先來說說財產的

  • is that it be by consent, not the consent of Bill Gates himself

    人為規定層面 什麼是財產

  • if he is the one who has to pay the tax,

    如何定義以及什麼是財產奪取

  • but by the consent that he and we,

    是一個更深遠的問題 是由政府所決定的

  • all of us within the society, gave when we emerged

    所以同意 那麼回到

  • from the state of nature and created the government

    我們的問題上來 同意的功能是什麼?

  • in the first place. It's the collective consent.

    將稅收合法化

  • And by that reading, it looks like consent is doing

    是要獲得同意 如果比爾蓋茨需要支付稅費

  • a whole lot and the limited government consent creates

    那並不是由他自己同意

  • isn't all that limited.

    而是由他和我們

  • Does anyone want to respond to that or have a question about that?

    社會中所有的人 在我們起初從自然狀態中

  • Go ahead. Stand up.

    出現到創造政府的時候

  • Well, I'm just wondering what Locke's view is on

    共同給予的同意 是集體的同意

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

    並且通過那個理解 看起來同意起了很大作用

  • whether it is possible for people who are born

    而由同意創造的有限政府

  • into that government to then leave and return

    也不是那麼有限

  • to the state of nature? I mean, I don't think

    有人對此有什麼意見或問題嗎?

  • that Locke mentioned that at all in the...

    來 請起立

  • What do you think?

    嗯 我只是想知道Locke對於

  • Well, I think, as the convention, it would be very difficult to leave

    政府已經存在時

  • the government because you are no longer,

    而出生的人

  • because nobody else is just living in the state of nature.

    是否可能離開並回到自然狀態

  • Everybody else is now governed by this legislature.

    的問題的看法? 我是說 我不認為

  • What would it mean today, you're asking.

    Locke提到了這個...

  • - And what's your name? - Nicola.

    你怎麼認為?

  • Nicola, to leave the state. Supposed you wanted to leave

    嗯 我想 作為公約 離開政府會很有難度

  • civil society today. You want to withdraw your consent

    因為你不再

  • and return to the state of nature.

    也沒有人能活在自然狀態

  • Well, because you didn't actually consent to it.

    現在所有人都受立法機關管理

  • You were just born into it. It was your ancestors who joined.

    你是要問 今天意味著什麼?

  • Right. You didn't sign the social contract. I didn't sign it.

    - 你叫什麼名字? - Nicola

  • Exactly.

    Nicola 離開這種狀態 假設今天你想要

  • All right, so what does Locke say there? Yes?

    離開文明社會 你想撤銷同意

  • I don't think Locke says you have to sign anything.

    回到自然的狀態

  • I think that he says that it's kind of implied consent.

    嗯 因為你並沒有給予同意

  • Implied?

    你只是恰好生在此時 是你的祖先加入了社會

  • Taking government's services, you are implying that

    對 你沒有簽社會契約 我也沒簽

  • you are consenting to the government

    的確

  • taking things from you.

    好 Locke對此如何解釋呢? 你來?

  • All right, so implied consent. That's a partial answer

    我不認為Locke說你需要簽下任何東西

  • to this challenge. Now, you may not think

    我認為他說那是一種默示的贊同

  • that implied consent is as good as the real thing.

    默示?

  • Is that what you're shaking your head about, Nicola?

    接受政府的服務 即是你默示

  • Speak up. Stand up and speak up.

    允許政府從你那裡

  • I don't think that necessarily just by utilizing the government's

    拿走東西

  • various resources that we are necessarily implying that

    好 默示贊同 這是這個問題

  • we agree with the way that this government was formed

    部分答案 而今你們也許會認為

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

    默示同意原則缺乏真實感

  • So you don't think the idea of implied consent

    你搖頭是這個意思吧 Nicola?

  • is strong enough to generate any obligation at all to obey

    說來聽聽 起來說

  • the government?

    我認為 我們不必因為利用政府的

  • Not necessarily, no.

    各種社會資源而默示

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

    我們同意組建該政府

  • would you pay your taxes?

    或者默示我們認可社會契約

  • I don't think so. I would rather have a system, personally,

    那麼你認為默示同意原則

  • that I could give money to exactly those sections

    不足以令所有人信服

  • of the government that I support

    而服從政府?

  • and not just blanket support of it.

    對 沒錯

  • You'd rather be in the state of nature,

    Nicola 如果你不會被捕

  • at least on April 15th.

    你會主動繳稅嗎?

  • But what I'm trying to get at is do you consider that

    我不會 個人認為 我更想有一個系統

  • you are under no obligation, since you haven't actually entered

    讓我可以直接把錢投給

  • into any act of consent, but for prudential reasons,

    那些我支持的政府部門

  • you do what you're supposed o do according to the law?

    而不是給予整個政府

  • Exactly.

    你更想活在一個自然狀態下

  • If you look at it that way, then you're violating another one

    至少在4月15日這天是這樣的

  • of Locke's treatises, which is that you can't take

    但是我很想知道的是

  • anything from anyone else. Like, you can't take the government's

    你認為沒有做出任何的社會承諾 那麼就沒有任何的

  • services and then not give them anything in return.

    責任了 但是為了保險起見

  • If you want to go live in the state of nature, that's fine,

    你依然會小心翼翼的依法行事 對吧?

  • but you can't take anything from the government

  • because by the government's terms, which are the only terms

    如果你這樣想的話 你違反了Locke提出的又一個原則

  • under which you can enter the agreement,

    該原則認為社會是互惠的 不可單方的索取

  • say that you have to pay taxes to take those things.

    就像 你不能接受政府的服務

  • So you are saying that Nicola can go back into the state of nature

    但又不給政府任何的回報

  • if she wants to but she can't drive on Mass. Ave.?

    如果你要回歸自然的話 那完全可以

  • Exactly.

    但是你不能享受任何的政府資源

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

    因為在政府看來

  • and even beyond taxation.

    與政府達成協議的唯一辦法就是繳稅

  • What about life? What about military conscription?

    但是你沒有繳稅 所以不得享有資源

  • Yes, what do you say? Stand up.

    那麼你的意思是 Nicola可以回歸自然

  • First of all, we have to remember that sending people to war

    但是她不能在馬薩諸塞州大道上開車?

  • is not necessarily implying that they'll die.

    是的

  • I mean, obviously, you're not raising their chances here

    現在我把問題上升到比馬薩諸塞州大道更高

  • but it's not a death penalty.

    甚至比稅收更高的高度

  • So if you're going to discuss whether or not

    人的生命怎樣? 徵兵制度如何?

  • military conscription is equivalent to suppressing

    你來? 起來說

  • people's right to life, you shouldn't approach it that way.

    首先 我們必須認識到

  • Secondly, the real problem here is Locke has this view

    把士兵送到戰場並不意味著他們就是送死

  • about consent and natural rights. But you're not allowed to give up

    我是說 明顯 他們生還的希望不大

  • your natural rights either. So the real question is

    但這並不是死刑

  • how does he himself figure it out between

    因此如果您要探討徵兵

  • "I agree to give up my life, give up my property"

    是否等同於剝奪

  • when he talks about taxes or military conscription for the fact.

    人們的生存權的話 您不該這樣舉例

  • But I guess Locke would be against suicide,

    其次 真正問題是 Locke承認

  • and that's still my own consent. I agree by taking my life.

    同意原則的同時 也承認自然權利 但是你不可以

  • - All right, good. All right, what's your name? - Eric.

    放棄你的自然權利 故問題的實質是

  • So Eric brings us back to the puzzle we've been

    Locke如何圓場

  • wrestling with since we started reading Locke.

    "我同意放棄我的生命以及我的財產"

  • On the one hand, we have these unalienable rights

    這是當他談及稅收和徵兵的時候的觀點

  • to life, liberty, and property, which means that even we

    我估計Locke是反對自殺的

  • don't have the power to give them up,

    但是這也算是我贊同 我同意放棄我的生命

  • and that's what creates the limits on legitimate government.

    - 好好 很好 你叫什麼? - Eric

  • It's not what we consent to that limits government.

    那麼Eric又把我們拉回到初讀Locke思想時

  • It's what we lack the power to give away

    就使我們迷惑不解的問題

  • when we consent, that limits government.

    一方面 我們擁有不可剝奪的權利

  • That's the point at the heart of Locke's whole account

    比如生命權 自由權 財產權 這些權利很強大

  • of legitimate government.

    連我們自己都不能放棄

  • But now, you say, "well, if we can't give up our own life,

    而這正是合法政府的受限

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

    這不是說我們以此限制政府管理

  • to property, how can we then agree

    只是因為我們同意權利不可放棄

  • to be bound by a majority that will force us to sacrifice

    才限制了政府的管理

  • our lives or give up our property"?

    而這才是Locke關於合法政府理論

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

    的核心所在

  • sanctioning an all-powerful government,

    但是現在你們會說 "如果我們無權放棄自己的生命

  • despite everything he says about unalienable rights?

    無權自殺 無權放棄財產權

  • Does he have a way out of it? Who would speak here

    那麼我們又如何

  • in defense of Locke or make sense, find a way out of this predicament?

    能夠同意受多數人約束而被迫

  • - Yes. - All right, go ahead.

    犧牲自己的生命 放棄自己的財產呢?

  • I feel like there is a general distinction we made between

    Locke對此是否有過合理的解釋呢 抑或他實際上

  • the right to life that individuals possess

    是完全贊成那種全權政府的學說

  • and the fact that the government cannot take away

    而他說過的那些所謂的自然權利只是一個幌子?

  • a single individual's right to life.

    他是否有過合理的解釋呢? 誰來說說

  • I think if you look at conscription as the government picking out

    就算是為Locke辯護一下吧 誰來解開這個套?

  • certain individuals to go fight in war, then that would be a violation

    - 我來 - 很好 請講

  • of their natural right to life. On the other hand,

    我覺得在個人對生命權的佔有

  • if you have conscription, let's say a lottery for example,

    以及政府不能剝奪

  • then in that case I would view that as the population picking

    個人的生命權上

  • their representatives to defend them in the case of war,

    還是有顯著的區別的

  • the idea being that since the whole population

    我覺得如果你把徵兵視為政府

  • cannot go out there to defend its own right to property,

    挑選特定人員去參戰的話

  • it picks its own representatives through a process that's essentially

    那無疑是對自然生命權的侵犯 但是另一方面

  • random and then these sort of elected representatives

    如果你被征招了 我們首先假設是這是一個概率的問題

  • go out and fight for the rights of the people.

    如此一來 我會認為這是全體人民選取出代表

  • It works very similar, it works just like

    這些代表有義務在戰爭中履行保衛的職責

  • an elected government, in my opinion.

    這種觀點的成立 是因為全體人民

  • All right, so an elected government can conscript citizens

    不能全部為了個人權利和財產而參戰

  • to go out and defend the way of life,

    所以人民通過一種本質上是隨機的方式來

  • the community that makes the enjoyment of rights possible?

    選取參戰的代表

  • I think it can. Because to me, it seems that it's very similar

    讓這些人為了全體人民的利益而戰

  • to the process of electing representatives for legislature.

    在我看來 這與民選政府的

  • Although here, it's as if the government

    產生原理是一樣的

  • is electing by conscription certain citizens to go die

    很好 那麼民選政府可以徵兵來

  • for the sake of the whole. Is that consistent with respect

    打仗 來保衛我們的生活方式

  • for a natural right to liberty?

    但是大眾是否享有了其中的好處呢?

  • Well, what I would say there is there is a distinction

    我個人認為是可以的 因為我認為這就像

  • between picking out individuals and having a random

    選舉立法人員一樣

  • choice of individuals. Like...

    即便這樣 好像政府是

  • Between picking out... let me make sure,

    通過徵兵 選出一些人

  • between picking out individuals, let me... what's your name?

    為了全體人的利益去送死 這樣符合

  • Gokul.

    對自由權的尊重之道嗎?

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

    呃 我要說的是

  • to lay down their lives and having a general law.

    在特別選定和隨機選取

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

    之間是有區別的 例如...

  • Locke is against arbitrary government.

    特別選定... 我來確認一下

  • He is against the arbitrary taking, the singling out of Bill Gates

    特別選定 讓我... 你叫什麼?

  • to finance the war in Iraq. He is against singling out

    我叫Gokul.

  • a particular citizen or group of people

    Gokul認為在選擇特定的人參戰送死與

  • to go off and fight. But if there is a general law

    依法挑選人參戰是有巨大的區別的

  • such that the government's choice,

    實際上 我覺得Locke也會給出這樣的答案 Gokul

  • the majority's action is non-arbitrary,

    Locke向來反對專制政府

  • it doesn't really amount to a violation of people's basic rights.

    他反對專制行為 他會反對強迫

  • What does count as a violation is an arbitrary taking

    比爾蓋茨資助伊拉克戰爭 他反對任何行為

  • because that would essentially say, not only to Bill Gates,

    將特定的公民或者特定的一群人

  • but to everyone, there is no rule of law.

    送上戰場 但是如果有這樣的一部法律

  • There is no institution of property. Because at the whim of the king,

    其規定的政府行為

  • or for that matter, of the parliament,

    即大多數人的行為不是專制行為的時候

  • we can name you or you to give up your property

    那麼就不違背人民的基本利益

  • or to give up your life. But so long as there is

    而真正違背人民根本利益的行為是那些專制的行為

  • a non-arbitrary rule of law, then it's permissible.

    那種行為本質上而言 這不僅僅是針對比爾蓋茨的了

  • Now, you may say this doesn't amount to a very limited government,

    而是針對所有人 完全是無視法紀

  • and the libertarian may complain that Locke is not

    無視財產制度 因為在國王的眼裡

  • such a terrific ally after all.

    或者是說在那些所謂的議會的眼裡

  • The libertarian has two grounds for disappointment in Locke.

    我們完全可以命令任何人放棄財產

  • First, that the rights are unalienable and therefore,

    或是放棄生命 但是只要有一部非專制的法律

  • I don't really own myself after all.

    那麼這些行為就變的合法可行了

  • I can't dispose of my life or my liberty or my property

    你們現在也許會說 這樣對限制政府的行為意義不大

  • in a way that violates my rights. That's disappointment number one.

    自由論者也會說

  • Disappointment number two, once there is a legitimate government

    原來Locke是一個偽盟友

  • based on consent, the only limits for Locke

    自由論者對Locke的失望體現在兩點

  • are limits on arbitrary takings of life or of liberty or of property.

    首先 既然權利是不可剝奪的

  • But if the majority decides, if the majority promulgates

    那麼實際上我並不是完全的擁有自己

  • a generally applicable law and if it votes duly according

    我不能自殺 不能放棄自己的財產和自由

  • to fair procedures, then there is no violation,

    某種意義上 又反過來違背了我的基本權利 這是第一點

  • whether it's a system of taxation or a system of conscription.

    第二點 一旦有了為人民所承認的

  • So it's clear that Locke is worried

    合法政府的話 根據Locke的理論 該政府行為的唯一限制

  • about the absolute arbitrary power of kings,

    便只有不允許專制的奪取生命 自由和財產

  • but it's also true, and here is the

    但是如果是多數人決定了的話

  • darker side of Locke, that this great theorist of consent

    如果絕大多數人是依法行事的話

  • came up with a theory of private property

    便不會有違背的說法了

  • that didn't require consent that may,

    無論是要徵稅還是要徵兵都是合法的了

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

    這樣看來 Locke明顯擔心的是

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

    那些國王們的專權

  • which was America.

    但是Locke的理論確實

  • You remember, when he talks about

    有其更加黑暗的一面 這個偉大理論家

  • the state of nature, he is not talking about

    提出了私有財產神聖不可侵犯

  • an imaginary place. "In the beginning," he says,

    根本無需同意

  • "All the world was America." And what was going on in America?

    就像上次Rochelle的觀點一樣

  • The settlers were enclosing land and engaged in wars

    也許和Locke的第二個焦點有關

  • with the Native Americans.

    那就是美洲

  • Locke, who was an administrator of one of the colonies,

    你們是否記得 當他談及

  • may have been as interested in providing a justification

    自然狀態的時候 他並不是

  • for private property through enclosure without consent

    在說一個假象的世界 "開始的時候" 他說

  • through enclosure and cultivation, as he was with developing a theory

    "全世界都與美洲一樣" 那麼當時的美洲發生了什麼?

  • of government based on consent that would rein in kings

    殖民者們當時在爭奪地盤 並且和美洲土著人

  • and arbitrary rulers.

    戰爭不斷

  • The question we're left with, the fundamental question

    Locke作為當時一塊殖民地的行政長官

  • we still haven't answered is what then becomes of consent?

    也許當時就希望用

  • What work can it do? What is its moral force?

    圈占和耕種來合法化

  • What are the limits of consent? Consent matters not only

    那些沒被允許的圈地行為 而當時他正在研究一種理論

  • for governments, but also for markets.

    該理論要求政府必須得到人民的承認 並且以此

  • And beginning next time, we're going to take up questions

    限制專制者們的專權

  • of the limits of consent in the buying and selling of goods.

    我們所面臨的問題是 最基本的問題是

  • Don't miss the chance to interact online

    我們還是沒能解決同意的起源?

  • with other viewers of Justice. Join the conversation,

    有何作用? 其道德力量是什麼?

  • take a pop quiz, watch lectures you've missed

    同意有何限制? 這種同意不僅僅對政府有效

  • and learn a lot more.

    對市場也是同樣有效

  • Visit JusticeHarvard.org. It's the right thing to do.

    下次開始 我們就要著眼於在買賣交易的中同意的限制是什麼的問題

Today, we turn to John Locke.

--==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