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.