在自己家里进行你的信仰。或者像我进行我信仰on your own in your own home or like me practicing my religion但不会影响旁边的人is not going to affect the next person.但如果我是穷人，我十分绝望，But if I'm poor and I'm desperate,我可能会犯罪来养活我的家人，这就会影响其他人like I might commit a crime to feed my family and that can affect others.好，谢谢你。Okay, good, thank you.偷面包错误来养活自己挨饿的家Would it be wrong for someone to steal a loaf of bread是错误的？是吗？to feed his starving family? Is that wrong?我认为是。这是 -I believe that it is. This is --让我们对你们三个人做个简单的调查Let's take a quick poll of the three of you.你觉得是，这是错误的。对。You say, yes, it is wrong. Yes.John呢？John?它违反了财产权。是错误的。It violates property rights. It's wrong.哪怕是为了养活家庭？Even to save a starving family?我的意思，养活家有其他办法I mean there are definitely other ways around that但如果认为可以偷面包，就不行。等一下and by justifying, no, hang on, hang on,你在笑before you laugh at me.在为盗窃行为辩护前Before justifying the act of stealing,你必须想到，我们已经认可的那些权利you have to look at violating the right that we've already agreed exists,自我占有和支配权，我的意思，the right of self possession and the possession of, I mean,自己的东西。your own things.我们同意有产权。We agree on property rights.好的，我们都觉得是偷窃。All right, we agree at stealing.是的，我们觉得是偷窃。Yeah, we agree at stealing.所以，这和产权无关So property rights is not the issue.好的，但 -All right, but --为什么这是错的呢，为了养活你挨饿的家？So why is it wrong to steal even to feed your starving family?和我在一开始问过的问题Sort of the original argument that I made in the very first有点类似question you asked.行为的后果并不能为行为本身辩护The benefits of an action don't justify, don't make the action just.Julia，你刚在是说？Do what, what would you say, Julia?为了养家，偷了面包是对的吗Is it all right to steal a loaf of bread to feed a为了救活你的孩子去偷药？starving family or to steal a drug that your child needs to survive?我想，老实话，我不反对这样做I think, I'm okay with that, honestly.即使从自由主义的观点来看，Even from the libertarian standpoint,我想，如果说你可以I think that, okay, saying that you can just take money从那些富人身上任意拿钱arbitrarily from people who have a lot to go to this pool去帮助这些有需要的人，但of people who need it, but you have an individual这些需要别人帮助的人，他们有义务自己救活自己who's acting on their own behalf to kind of save themselves and then我想，像你提到的，像自我支配这个观念I think you said they, for any idea like self possession,穷人也有权自己保护自己，自己养活自己they are also in charge of protecting themselves and keeping themselves因此，即使是站在自由主义的立场alive so, therefore, even for a libertarian standpoint,偷窃可能也是对的that might be okay.好的，这很好，这很好。All right, that's good, that's good.那么，对于反对意见三呢？All right, what about number three up here?是不是有这样一种情况Isn't it the case that the successful,那些成功人、有钱人，他们有责任the wealthy, owe a debt.他们能有今天，不是完全靠自己。They didn't do that all by themselves.他们得和其他人合作，他们对社会有亏欠They had to cooperate with other people that they owe a debt而这种亏欠，用税收的形式来还to society and that that's expressed in taxation.Julia，你想继续说吗？You wanna take that on, Julia?这一次，我觉得，从他们如何致富的这个意义上说Okay, this one, I believe that there is not a debt to society这些人并没有亏欠社会什么in the sense that how did these people become wealthy?他们做了一些社会肯定的事They did something that society valued highly.社会就给予和供应他们I think that society has already been giving, been providing for them如果真有的话，我认为这些都被可以抵消if anything, I think it's… everything is cancelled out.他们为社会作出一点贡献，社会也回应他们They provided a service to society and society responded by somehow他们获得了自己的财富they got their wealth, so I think that --说具体一点So be concrete.像迈克尔乔丹In the case of Michael Jordan, some…来说明你的观点。I mean, to illustrate your point.有一批人在帮助他赚钱，他的队友There were people who helped him make the money, the teammates,那位教会他打球的教练the coach, people who taught him how to play.但是，我们都付了钱给他们，他们都得到了报偿But they've, you're saying, but they've all been paid for their services.没错，大家也从观看乔丹打球当中Exactly, and society derived a lot of benefit and pleasure from watching得到很多欢乐Michael Jordan play.我认为，这就是他给社会的回报I think that that's how he paid his debt to society.好，好。All right, good.有谁想继续说下去？是的Who would, anyone likes to take up that point? Yes.我认为，我们的一个假设有问题I think that there's a problem here with that we're assuming我们假设，当生活在一个社会里，我们能自我支配that a person has self possession when they live in a society.我觉得，当你在这个社会里生活，你不得不放弃这项权利I feel like when you live in a society, you give up that right.我的意思是，从法律上说，如果有人得罪了我I mean, technically, if I want to personally go out and kill someone因为我有权自我支配，所以我想把这个人给杀了because they offend me, that is self possession.但因为我生活在一个社会里，我不能这样做。Because I live in a society I cannot do that.我认为这相当于说，因为我有更多的钱I think it's kind of equivalent to say because I have more money,我有资源来帮助其他人I have resources that can save people's lives,政府是不是就可以从我身上拿钱呢？is it not okay for the government to take that from me?因为我生活在一个社会里，只能在一定程度上自我支配Self possession only to a certain extent because I'm living in a society我必须考虑到周围的人where I have to take account of the people around me.你叫什么名字？So are you question, what's your name?维多利亚。Victoria.维多利亚，你是在质疑自我支配这个基本前提？Victoria, are you questioning the fundamental premise of self possession?是。Yes.我认为，你并没有真正的自我支配I think that you don't really have self possession如果你选择了在这个社会里生活，因为你不能忽略if you choose to live in a society because you cannot just discount你周围的人the people around you.好吧，我想让这些自由主义者们，对最后一点All right, I want to quickly get the response of the libertarian做个简短的回应team to the last point.最后一点，也许像维多利亚州说的The last point builds on, well, maybe it builds on Victoria's我们并没有支配和拥有自己，因为suggestion that we don't own ourselves because it says that Bill Gates比尔盖茨 、乔丹都很富有is wealthy, that Michael Jordan makes a huge income,但这并不完全靠他们一个人的努力isn't wholly their own doing.这还靠运气，所以我们不能说It's the product of a lot of luck and so we can't claim that they在道义上，并不是所有钱都是他们应得的morally deserve all the money they make.谁想回应这点？Alex？Who wants to reply to that? Alex?你当然证明说...You certainly could make the case that it is not…他们的富有不适用于他们是否心地善良，their wealth is not appropriate to the goodness in their hearts,这并不是一个和道德有关的问题but that's not really the morally relevant issue.这里的论点在于，他们是通过自由交换的过程The point is that they have received what they have through人们自愿地和他们交换the free exchange of people who have given them their holdings,通常是为了换取一些服务usually in exchange for providing some other service很好Good enough.我尝试总结一下，从这次讨论中学到的I want to try to sum up what we've learned from this discussion,首先，让我们感谢John，Alex和Julia的出色表现but, first, let's thank John, Alex, and Julia for a really wonderful job.在讨论快结束的时候，维多利亚Toward the end of the discussion just now Victoria challenged质疑自由主义推理的一个前提the premise of this line of reasoning that's libertarian logic.她指出，也许我们并不能支配自己Maybe, she suggested, we don't own ourselves after all.如果你不赞同，自由主义者反对再分配的观点If you reject the libertarian case against redistribution,似乎我们能打破自由主义的逻辑there would seem to be an incentive to break in to the libertarian line在最一开始，在最温和的层次上of reasoning at the earliest, at the most modest level,这就是为什么很多人争议which is why a lot of people disputed that taxation认为税收在道义上等同于强迫劳动。is morally equivalent to forced labor.但对于自由主义的大前提But what about the big claim, the premise, the big idea和基本观点呢？underlying the libertarian argument?我们是否真的能支配自己，还是我们可以推翻这个想法Is it true that we own ourselves or can we do without that idea而且仍然能像自由主义者们所要的那样and still avoid what libertarians want to avoid creating a society反对建立一个所谓的“正义”社会，为了一部分人的利益in an account of justice where some people can be just used就可以从另外一部分人拿钱for the sake of other people's welfare or even for the sake of the general good?自由主义批判功利主义把个人当作Libertarians combat the utilitarian idea of using people as means谋取大众利益的工具for the collective happiness by saying the way to put a stop他们评判的理由是to that utilitarian logic of using persons is to resort to一个听起来很有说服力的想法：the intuitively powerful idea that we are the proprietors我们是自己的主人of our own person.这是Alex、Julia、John、Robert Nozick这一派的观点That's Alex and Julia and John and Robert Nozick.如果我们质疑我们是否能自我支配What are the consequences for a theory of justice and那我们需要一个怎么样的关于正义的理论？in account of rights of calling into question the idea of self possession?难道我们又回到功利主义Does it mean that we're back to utilitarianism and using people把所有人的利益加起来，最后决定把那个胖子推下桥？（第一集）and aggregating preferences and pushing the fat man off the bridge?并非是Nozick本人发展出自我支配这个概念Nozick doesn't himself fully develop the idea of self possession.他借用了早期的哲学家洛克He borrows it from an earlier philosopher, John Locke.当自然物（例如风、花草）最后变为私人财产John Locke accounted for the rise of private property from the state of nature洛克解释这一现象所用的逻辑，跟Nozickby a chain of reasoning very similar to the one that Nozick和其他自由主义者用的类似and the libertarians use.