Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • When we ended last time, we were discussing

    --==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

  • Locke's idea of government by consent and the question arose,

    --==聖城家園SCG字幕組bbs.cnscg.com==-- 協調: 飛天宇 MAXの依依 翻譯: 冷兔子 曹卡卡 星河 校對: 飛天宇

  • "What are the limits on government that even the agreement

    雇槍?

  • of the majority can't override?"

    上節課結束的時候 我們討論到了

  • That was the question we ended with.

    Locke關於同意產生政府的思想 也提出了這樣的問題

  • We saw in the case of property rights

    "政府的界限是什麼 即使

  • that on Locke's view a democratically elected government

    是大多數人都贊同也無法推翻?"

  • has the right to tax people.

    這就是上節課的問題

  • It has to be taxation with consent

    我們在財產權案例中看到

  • because it does involve the taking of people's property

    Locke認為 民主選舉出的政府

  • for the common good but it doesn't require the consent

    有權向人民徵稅

  • of each individual at the time the tax is enacted or collected.

    前提是徵稅必須經過公民同意

  • What it does require is a prior act of consent

    因為徵稅是用公民的錢

  • to join the society, to take on the political obligation

    來實現公眾利益 但在制定稅則和徵稅的時候

  • but once you take on that obligation, you agree to be bound by the majority.

    卻不徵求個體的同意

  • So much for taxation. But what you may ask,

    它所要求的是 事先同意進入社會

  • about the right to life? Can the government conscript people

    願意承擔政治責任

  • and send them into battle?

    但一旦你願意承擔政治責任 就意味著你同意受到大多數的限制

  • And what about the idea that we own ourselves?

    徵稅也是如此 但你可能會問

  • Isn't the idea of self-possession violated if the government can,

    那生命權呢? 政府可以徵召公民入伍

  • through coercive legislation and enforcement powers, say

    把他們送上戰場嗎?

  • "You must go risk your life to fight in Iraq."

    我們是自己的所有者 這一思想呢?

  • What would Locke say?

    我們是自己的所有者這一思想 豈不是受到了政府的侵犯

  • Does the government have the right to do that?

    如果政府可以通過強制立法和執法 對公民說

  • Yes. In fact he says in 139, he says,

    "你必須冒著生命危險去伊拉克作戰"

  • "What matters is that the political authority or the military authority

    對此Locke怎麼說呢?

  • not be arbitrary, that's what matters."

    政府有權這麼做嗎?

  • And he gives a wonderful example.

    答案是有 實際上在139頁他就說過 他說

  • He says "A sergeant, even a sergeant, let alone a general,

    "重要的是政治權力或軍事權力

  • a sergeant can command a soldier to go right up to a face of a cannon

    不是隨意的 這是關鍵"

  • where he is almost sure to die, that the sergeant can do.

    他給了一個很妙的例子

  • The general can condemn the soldier to death for deserting his post

    他說 "一名中士 不用說一名將軍 就算是一名中士

  • or for not obeying even a desperate order.

    就可以命令士兵去正面面對一門大炮

  • But with all their power over life and death, what these officers can't do

    他很可能會死 但中士能夠這麼做

  • is take a penny of that soldier's money because that has nothing to do

    將軍可以 以擅離職守或不遵守命令為由處死士兵

  • with the rightful authority,

    即使那是一條不顧士兵死活的命令

  • that would be arbitrary and it would be corrupt."

    但除了掌握生殺大權外 軍官不能做的是

  • So consent winds up being very powerful in Locke,

    拿士兵的任何一分錢 因為這和

  • not consent of the individual to the particular tax or military order,

    應有的權力無關

  • but consent to join the government and to be bound

    而且這種行為是隨意的 腐敗的"

  • by the majority in the first place.

    所以Locke所說的同意是很有份量的

  • That's the consent that matters and it matters so powerfully

    不是個體對某一稅收或軍事政策的同意

  • that even the limited government created by the fact

    而是同意加入政府以及同意被大多數

  • that we have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and property,

    所約束

  • even that limited government is only limited in the sense

    這就是起重要作用的同意 它的影響如此之大

  • that it has to govern by generally applicable laws,

    即使是在我們不可剝奪的生命權 自由權以及財產權

  • the rule of law, it can't be arbitrary. That's Locke.

    之上建立的政府

  • Well this raises a question about consent.

    即使有限政府的有限之處只是在於

  • Why is consent such a powerful moral instrument

    它只能通過一般適用的法律和法則來進行統治

  • in creating political authority and the obligation to obey?

    而不能是隨意的統治 這就是Locke的思想

  • Today we begin to investigate the question of consent

    這引出了關於同意的問題

  • by looking at a concrete case, the case of military conscription.

    為什麼同意是如此重要的道德手段

  • Now some people say if we have a fundamental right

    在建立政治權力和義務方面發揮著如此大的作用?

  • that arises from the idea that we own ourselves,

    今天我們要通過具體事例

  • it's a violation of that right for government to conscript citizens

    來探討這一問題 強制徵兵制度案例

  • to go fight in wars. Others disagree.

    一些人說如果在"我們是自己的所有者"這一思想之下

  • Others say that's a legitimate power of government,

    我們有基本的權利

  • of democratically elected governments, anyhow,

    那麼政府徵召公民入伍打仗 則違背了這一權利

  • and that we have an obligation to obey.

    另一些人不同意

  • Let's take the case of the United States fighting a war in Iraq.

    他們認為這是民主選舉產生的政府

  • News accounts tells us that the military is having great difficulty

    的合法權利 不管如何

  • meeting its recruitment targets.

    我們都有義務遵守

  • Consider three policies that the U.S. government

    以美國在伊拉克開戰為例

  • might undertake to deal with the fact

    新聞報導說軍隊在完成徵募目標上

  • that it's not achieving its recruiting targets.

    有很大困難

  • Solution number one: increase the pay and benefits

    想想美國政府

  • to attract a sufficient number of soldiers.

    為完成徵兵計劃

  • Option number two: shift to a system of military conscription,

    可能採取的三種政策

  • have a lottery, and whose ever numbers are drawn,

    解決方案一: 提高薪水和津貼

  • go to fight in Iraq.

    來吸引大量士兵

  • System number three: outsource, hire what traditionally

    解決方案二: 轉向軍事強制徵兵系統

  • have been called mercenaries, people around the world

    隨機抽取 誰的名字被抽中

  • who are qualified, able to do the work,

    誰就去打仗

  • able to fight well, and who are willing to do it

    解決方案三: 外包 僱傭傳統上被稱為

  • for the existing wage.

    僱傭兵的人 僱傭世界範圍內

  • So let's take a quick poll here.

    能夠做這份工作

  • How many favor increasing the pay?

    能夠很好地作戰 能夠為了錢

  • A huge majority.

    而打仗的人

  • How many favor going to conscription?

    咱們來做份快速調查

  • Maybe a dozen people in the room favor conscription.

    有多少人支持提高薪水?

  • What about the outsourcing solution?

    絕大多數

  • Okay, so there may be two, three dozen.

    有多少人讚成強制徵兵?

  • During the Civil War, the Union used a combination

    大約有十幾個人支持強制徵兵

  • of conscription and the market system to fill the ranks of the military

    那僱傭兵制呢?

  • to fight in the Civil War.

    大約有二三十人讚成

  • It was a system that began with conscription

    內戰時期 聯邦通過強制徵兵和市場買賣制度

  • but if you were drafted and didn't want to serve,

    來組織軍隊

  • you could hire a substitute to take your place

    參戰

  • and many people did.

    這一制度是以強制徵兵開始

  • You could pay whatever the market required

    但如果你被徵召但卻不想服兵役

  • in order to find a substitute, people ran ads in newspapers,

    你可以僱人代替你

  • in the classified ads offering 500 dollars, sometimes 1000 dollars,

    有很多人就是這麼幹的

  • for a substitute who would go fight the Civil War

    為了找到替身 你可以付出市場需要的任何價碼

  • in their place.

    人們在報紙上登廣告

  • In fact, it's reported that Andrew Carnegie

    在分類廣告中開出500美元 有時有1000美元

  • was drafted and hired a substitute to take his place

    來吸引願意替他們

  • for an amount that was a little less

    參加內戰的人

  • than the amount he spent in the year on fancy cigars.

    實際上 據說安德魯·卡耐基

  • Now I want to get your views about this Civil War system,

    也曾接到入伍命令 但他雇了一個人代替他

  • call it the hybrid system, conscription but with a buyout provision.

    價錢比他每年

  • How many think it was a just system?

    花在雪茄上的錢少點

  • How many would defend the Civil War system?

    現在我想知道你們對內戰時的這套徵兵制度的看法

  • Anybody? Anybody else?

    這套制度可以稱為是混合徵兵制度 允許徵兵和買斷

  • How many think it was unjust?

    有多少人覺得這一制度是公正的?

  • Most of you don't like the Civil War system,

    有多少人願意捍衛這一制度?

  • you think it's unjust.

    有嗎? 還有嗎?

  • Let's hear an objection. Why don't you like it?

    有多少人認為這是不公正的?

  • What's wrong with it? Yes.

    大多數人不喜歡內戰的這一制度

  • Well by paying $300 to be exempt one time around,

    認為是不公正的

  • you're really putting a price on valuing human life

    讓我們來聽聽反對意見 你為什麼不喜歡?

  • and we established earlier, that's really hard to do

    它有什麼不對嗎? 請講

  • so they're trying to accomplish something that really isn't feasible.

    一次支付300美元就可以免服兵役

  • Good. So paying someone $300 or $500 or $1,000...

    其實這就是在給生命貼上價格標籤

  • You're basically saying that's what their life is worth to you.

    我們早已明確這一點 很難用金錢來衡量生命的價值

  • That's what their life is worth, it's putting a dollar value on life.

    所以他們是在試圖完成根本就行不通的東西

  • - That's good. What's your name? - Liz.

    很好 所以花300或500美元 1000美元...

  • Liz.

    基本上你就是在說 他們的命就值這些錢

  • Well, who has an answer for Liz.

    他們的生命價值就是如此 給生命貼上價格標籤

  • You defended the Civil War system, what do you say?

    - 很好 你叫什麼? - Liz

  • If you don't like the price then you have the freedom

    Liz 不錯

  • to not be sold or hired so it's completely up to you.

    Liz提出的問題誰有答案

  • I don't think it's necessarily putting a specific price

    你為內戰時期的徵兵制度辯護 你怎麼說?

  • on you and if it's done by himself, I don't think there's anything

    如果價格不是你喜歡的 你完全有自由

  • that's really morally wrong with that.

    拒絕被賣或被僱傭 所以這完全取決於你

  • So the person who takes the $500,

    我認為沒有必要貼上特定的價格

  • let's say, he's putting his own price on his life

    但如果是本人同意 我認為在道德上

  • or on the risk of his life and he should have the freedom

    這根本沒什麼錯

  • to choose to do that.

    所以一個人接受了500美元

  • Exactly.

    比如說 他給自己的生命

  • - What's your name? - Jason.

    或所冒的生命危險開出了價錢 他應該有自由

  • Jason. Thank you. Now we need to hear

    決定該做什麼

  • from another critic of the Civil War system. Yes.

    完全正確

  • It's a kind of coercion almost, people who have lower incomes,

    - 你叫什麼? - Jason

  • for Carnegie he can totally ignore the draft, $300 is an irrelevant

    Jason 謝謝 現在我們來聽聽

  • in terms of his income but someone of a lower income,

    其他批評者的意見 請講

  • they're essentially being coerced to draft, to be drafted,

    這差不多就是對低收入人的一種強迫

  • it's probably they're not able to find a replacement.

    卡耐基可以完全忽略徵兵 300美元跟他的收入相比

  • Tell me your name.

    根本是小菜一碟 但對低收入的人來說

  • Sam.

    他們絕對是被強迫徵兵 被徵兵

  • Sam. All right so you say, Sam, that when a poor laborer

    很可能 他們就找不到替身

  • accepts $300 to fight in the Civil War, he is in effect being coerced

    告訴我你的名字

  • by that money given his economic circumstances

    我叫Sam

  • whereas Carnegie can go off, pay the money, and not serve.

    Sam 你說窮人

  • Alright. I want to hear someone who has a reply to Sam's argument,

    為了300美元走上內戰的戰場 實際上他是因為自己的經濟狀況

  • that what looks like a free exchange is actually coercive.

    被迫接受那筆錢的

  • Who has an answer to Sam? Go ahead.

    而卡耐基卻可以付錢走人 不服兵役

  • I'd actually agree with him in saying that...

    好的 我想聽聽對Sam觀點的回擊

  • You agree with Sam.

    他的觀點是 看起來是自由交換 實際是強迫的

  • I agree with him in saying that it is coercion in the sense that it robs individual of his ability to reason.

    誰有答案? 請講

  • Okay, and what's your name?

    其實我同意他說的...

  • Raul.

    你同意Sam說的

  • All right. So Raul and Sam agree that what looks

    我同意他說的 它剝奪了個人選擇的能力 在這一點上 這就是強迫

  • like a free exchange, free choice, voluntary act

    很好 你的名字?

  • actually involves coercion.

    我叫Raul

  • It's profound coercion of the worst kind

    Raul和Sam一致認為

  • because it falls so disproportionately upon one segment of the society.

    表面上看是自由交換 自由選擇 自願行為

  • Good. Alright. So Raul and Sam have made a powerful point.

    實際上卻是強迫

  • Who would like to reply?

    這是很嚴重 很糟糕的強迫

  • Who has an answer for Sam and Raul? Go ahead.

    因為它不成比例地向一部分人傾斜

  • I don't think that these drafting systems

    很好 Raul和Sam的觀點很有力

  • are really terribly different from all volunteer army

    你們要怎麼反擊呢?

  • sort of recruiting strategies.

    誰有答案? 請講

  • The whole idea of having benefits and pay for joining the army

    我不認為這些徵兵制度

  • is sort of a coercive strategy to get people to join.

    和志願兵的徵兵策略

  • It is true that military volunteers come from disproportionately

    有什麼很大的不同

  • lower economic status and also from certain regions of the country

    參軍就發放薪水和津貼

  • where you can use like patriotism to try and coerce people

    本身就是一種強制人們入伍的策略

  • to feel like it's the right thing to do to volunteer and go over to Iraq.

    的確 志願軍大多數經濟地位相對較低

  • And tell me your name.

    來自某些特定地區

  • Emily.

    在這些地區 你可以用愛國主義來激勵 強制公民

  • Alright, Emily says, and Raul you're going to have to

    使他們覺得志願參軍加入伊戰是正確的

  • reply to this so get ready.

    告訴我你的名字

  • Emily says fair enough, there is a coercive element

    我叫Emily

  • to the Civil War system when a laborer takes the place

    那麼 Emily說了她的觀點 Raul你要做出回擊

  • of Andrew Carnegie for $500. Emily concedes that but she says

    所以準備好

  • if that troubles you about the Civil War system

    Emily說得很好 內戰時期的徵兵制度存在強制因素

  • shouldn't that also trouble you about the volunteer army today?

    一名勞動者可以為了500美元

  • Before you answer, how did you vote in the first poll?

    代替安德魯·卡耐基服兵役 Emily承認這一點 但她說

  • - Did you defend the volunteer army? - I didn't vote.

    如果這讓你質疑內戰時期的徵兵制度

  • You didn't vote. By the way,

    為什麼它沒讓你對今天的志願兵制度產生質疑呢?

  • you didn't vote but did you sell your vote

    在給出答案之前 第一輪的調查中你會如何投票?

  • to the person sitting next to you? No. Alright.

    - 你支持志願徵兵嗎? - 我沒有投票

  • So what would you say to that argument.

    你沒投票 順便問一下

  • I think that the circumstances are different in that

    你沒投票 那你把票賣給

  • there was conscription in the Civil War.

    你旁邊的那個人了嗎? 沒有 好吧

  • There is no draft today and I think that volunteers

    你怎麼看那些爭論

  • for the army today have a more profound sense of patriotism

    內戰時期有強制徵兵制度

  • that is of an individual choice than those who were forced

    但那時情況是不同的

  • into the military in the Civil War.

    當今社會沒有徵兵法 我認為

  • Somehow less coerced?

    志願入伍的人有更高的愛國熱情

  • Less coerced.

    而且這是出於個人選擇 而不像內戰時期那樣

  • Even though there is still inequality in American society?

    人們是迫入伍的

  • Even though, as Emily points out, the makeup of the American military

    不那麼強制了?

  • is not reflective of the population as a whole?

    不那麼強制了

  • Let's just do an experiment here. How many here have either served

    即使當今美國社會仍存在不平等?

  • in the military or have a family member who has served in the military

    即使是如Emily指出的那樣 美國軍隊的構成

  • in this generation, not parents?

    並不能反映整個美國社會的構成?

  • Family members. In this generation.

    咱們做個試驗看看 有多少人服過兵役

  • And how many have neither served nor have any brothers or sisters who have served?

    或自己的家人 父母除外

  • Does that bear out your point Emily?

    服過兵役?

  • Yes.

    和自己同輩的家庭成員

  • Alright. Now we need to hear from... most of you defended the idea

    有多少人既沒自己服過兵役 也沒有兄弟姐妹服過兵役的?

  • of the all volunteer military overwhelmingly and yet overwhelmingly,

    這支持了你的觀點嗎 Emily?

  • people considered the Civil War system unjust.

    是的

  • Sam and Raul articulated reasons for objecting to the Civil War system,

    好的 現在我們來聽聽... 大多數人以壓倒性的優勢

  • it took place against a background of inequality

    為志願兵制度辯護 並且大多數人

  • and therefore the choices people made to buy their way in to military service

    認為內戰時期的徵兵制度是不公正的

  • were not truly free but at least partly coerced.

    Sam和Raul清晰地闡述了反對這一制度的原因

  • Then Emily extends that argument in the form of a challenge.

    這一制度是在不平等的背景下產生的

  • Alright, everyone here who voted in favor

    因此人們花錢僱人代替入伍的選擇

  • of the all volunteer army should be able... should have to explain

    並不是真正自由的選擇 至少是有部分是被強迫的

  • what's the difference in principle.

    然後Emily以挑戰的形式 擴展了這一辯論

  • Doesn't the all volunteer army simply universalize the feature

    好的 所有投票支持

  • that almost everyone found objectionable in the Civil War buyout provision?

    志願兵的都應該... 應該解釋

  • Did I state the challenge fairly Emily?

    在原則上有什麼差異

  • Yes.

    志願軍是不是簡單地將 在內戰的買斷條款中

  • Okay. So we need to hear from a defender

    幾乎每個人都是有異議的這一特徵普遍化了?

  • of the all volunteer military who can address Emily's challenge.

    我說的清楚嗎 Emily?

  • Who can do that? Go ahead.

    很清楚

  • The difference between the Civil War system and the all volunteer army system

    那麼我們需要聽聽

  • is that in the Civil War, you're being hired not by the government,

    志願軍的捍衛者怎麼說 他應該能解決Emily的挑戰

  • but by an individual and as a result, different people who get hired

    誰來? 請講

  • by different individuals get paid different amounts.

    內戰時期的徵兵制度和現在的志願兵制度 不同之處在於

  • In the case of the all volunteer army, everyone who gets hired

    內戰中 僱傭你的不是政府

  • is hired by the government and gets paid the same amount.

    而是個人 因此被僱傭的人是不同的

  • It's precisely the universalization of essentially paying your way

    得到的酬勞也是不同的

  • to the army that makes the all volunteer army just.

    在志願兵制度中 每個人都是

  • Emily?

    被政府僱傭 得到的酬勞也一樣多

  • I guess I'd frame the principle slightly differently.

    正是酬勞一致的這一點

  • On the all volunteer army, it's possible for somebody

    使志願兵制度變得公正了

  • to just step aside and not really think

    Emily呢?

  • about the war at all. It's possible to say,

    我想我得把原則稍稍地改變一下了

  • "I don't need the money, I don't need to have an opinion about this,

    在志願兵制度中 對某人來說

  • I don't need to feel obligated to take my part and defend my country".

    他可以不用擔心 完全不去想

  • With the coercive system, or sorry, with an explicit draft

    戰爭那回事 換句話說

  • then there's the threat at least that every individual

    "我不缺這點錢 我也不用為這件事費心

  • will have to make some sort of decision

    保衛國家這事與我無關"

  • regarding military conscription and perhaps in that way,

    但是強制徵兵 不好意思 如果以明文條款徵兵

  • it's more equitable.

    至少這樣就會讓每個人都

  • It's true that Andrew Carnegie might not serve in any case