使之变成他的财产makes it his property."为什么？因为毫无疑问地，劳动力是Why? Because the labor is the unquestionable property劳动者的财产，因此除劳动者以外of the laborer and therefore, no one but the laborer没人有权拥有融合了他的劳动力的劳动产物can have a right to what is joined to or mixed with his labor.然后他补充了一个重点And then he adds this important provision,至少，那里还留着足够的、同样好的资源给其他人"at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others."我们不仅仅拥有土地上长出来的果实、But we not only acquire our property in the fruits of the earth,猎到的鹿、捕到的鱼来，in the deer that we hunt, in the fish that we catch我们还耕土，圈地，种下马铃薯but also if we till and plow and enclose the land and grow potatoes,这样，我们拥有的就不仅是马铃薯，还拥有土地we own not only the potatoes but the land, the earth.一个人能耕耘、种植、改良和培育多少土地"As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates以及土地上的产出，他就拥有多少财产权and can use the product of, so much is his property.他通过自己的劳动，把它从共有财产中圈出来He by his labor encloses it from the commons.因此，权利是不可分割的，这一观点So the idea that rights are unalienable seems to distance把洛克从自由主义中区分开来Locke from the libertarian.自由主义认为，我们对自己Libertarian wants to say we have an absolute property right有绝对产权，因此我们可以做自己in ourselves and therefore, we can do with ourselves想做的任何事whatever we want.洛克对这个观点并不是很认可Locke is not a sturdy ally for that view.事实上，他说，如果你认真地考虑自然权利In fact, he says if you take natural rights seriously,你就会发现，我们的自然权利you'll be led to the idea that there are certain constraints我们能做什么也是有限制的on what we can do with our natural rights,这些是限制上帝赐给的，或经过逻辑地反思constraints given either by God or by reason reflecting自由的真正含义on what it means really to be free, and really to be free自由的真正含义，就是承认我们的权利是不可分割的means recognizing that our rights are unalienable.所以， 这就是洛克和自由主义者的区别So here is the difference between Locke and the libertarians.但当我们谈到私有财产时But when it comes to Locke's account of private property,洛克似乎又重新成为了自由主义者的坚定盟友he begins to look again like a pretty good ally因为他对私有财产的看法始于because his argument for private property begins我们是自己的所有者这一观点with the idea that we are the proprietors of our own person因此，我们的劳动力and therefore, of our labor, and therefore,我们的劳动成果，of the fruits of our labor, including not only不仅包括，我们在自然状态下所收获的东西the things we gather and hunt in the state of nature而且包括那块我们培育、耕耘的土地but also we acquire our property right in the land that we enclose的所有权and cultivate and improve.有很多例子可以，让我们直觉地认为There are some examples that can bring out the moral intuition经过我们的劳动，就可以占有那些无主的东西that our labor can take something that is unowned and make it ours,尽管有时，会引起一些争议though sometimes, there are disputes about this.发达国家和发展中国家之间有个争议There is a debate among rich countries and developing countries与贸易有关的知识产权的争论about trade-related intellectual property rights.最近，对药物专利法的争论上升到了顶点It came to a head recently over drug patent laws.西方国家，尤其是美国，说Western countries, and especially the United States say,我们有庞大的制药业"We have a big pharmaceutical industry来开发新药that develops new drugs.我们希望世界上所有的国家都同意We want all countries in the world to agree尊重知识产权to respect the patents."在南非，出现了的艾滋病危机Then, there came along the AIDS crisis in South Africa,而美国的艾滋病药物十分昂贵and the American AIDS drugs were hugely expensive,远远超过大多数非洲人可支付的能力far more than could be afforded by most Africans.因此，南非政府说So the South African government said,我们将以更少的费用来购买"We are going to begin to buy a generic version of the AIDS抗艾滋病的非专利药antiretroviral drug at a tiny fraction of the cost因为我们可以找到一家印度制造公司because we can find an Indian manufacturing company他们破译了(美国药物)的配方that figures out how the thing is made and produces it,并以低价售出，因此如果我们可以and for a tiny fraction of the cost, we can save lives忽略专利因素的话，就能拯救更多的生命if we don't respect that patent."然后美国政府说And then the American government said,不行，这是一家美国公司投资"No, here is a company that invested research研发了这种药物and created this drug.你不能大规模生产这些药物而不支付You can't just start mass producing these drugs without paying相应的许可费a licensing fee."因此而引发了争议，这家制药公司And so there was a dispute and the pharmaceutical company起诉了南非政府，来阻止他们购买sued the South African government to try to prevent their buying那些廉价药，他们认为那些是盗版的the cheap generic, as they saw it, pirated version of an AIDS drug.但最终，这家制药公司作出让步，说And eventually, the pharmaceutical industry gave in and said,“好吧，你们可以这样做”"All right, you can do that."但是这类关于产权法规、知识产权、药物专利But this dispute about what the rules of property should be,在某种程度上of intellectual property of drug patenting, in a way,已经is the last frontier of the state of nature because among nations因为，国际间没有统一的专利权和财产权的法律where there is no uniform law of patent rights and property rights,在达成达到共识，或国际协议之前it's up for grabs until, by some act of consent,谁都可以争赢some international agreement, people enter into some settled rules.大家怎么看待，洛克对于私有财产的观点What about Locke's account of private property以及它如何在政府和法律出现之前就存在？and how it can arise before government and before law这是否正确？comes on the scene? Is it successful?多少人认为他的观点很有说服力？How many think it's pretty persuasive?请举手Raise your hand.有多少人并不觉得有说服力？How many don't find it persuasive?好吧，让我们听一听批评者的意见All right, let's hear from some critics.洛克关于私有产权的出现无需他人同意的观点What is wrong with Locke's account of how private property can arise有什么错？without consent? Yes?是的，我认为它正义化了以前欧洲殖民美洲的行为Yes, I think it justifies European cultural norms as far as回看当时，如果没有印地安人在美洲土地上的耕种when you look at how Native Americans may not have cultivated American land,当这些欧洲人来到美国but by their arrival in the Americas, that contributed（当然，他们为开发美洲做了巨大的贡献）to the development of America, which wouldn't have otherwise就不一定有现在的发展，或者不一定由这批（欧洲）人来开发necessarily happened then or by that specific group.所以，你认为这个理论是为（这些欧洲人）取得土地财产权而辩护So you think that this is a defense, this defense of private property in land...是的，因为它使原始取得的问题复杂化了Yes, because it complicates original acquisition如果你只承认，这批后来的外国人开发了这片土地if you only cite the arrival of foreigners that cultivated the land.- 我明白了，你叫什么名字？- RochelleI see. And what's your name? - Rochelle.- Rochelle？- 是的Rochelle? - Yes.Rochelle说，这个财产获得的解释Rochelle says this account of how property arises迎合了当时欧洲人来北美would fit what was going on in North America during the time殖民的事件of the European settlement.Rochelle，你认为它是Do you think, Rochelle, that it's a way of defending为掠夺土地做辩解的一种方式？the appropriation of the land?是的，我的意思是，这个观点同样在为Indeed, because I mean, he is also justifying光荣革命做了辩护（光荣革命：英国一场和宗教有关的非暴力宫廷政变，建立了立宪君主制度以及两党制度）the glorious revolutions.不难想象，他也在为殖民I don't think it's inconceivable that he is also justifying作辩护colonization as well.嗯，这是一个有趣的历史看法Well, that's an interesting historical suggestion我认为这还可以有很多讨论and I think there is a lot to be said for it.你如何看待他论据的有效性？What do you think of the validity of his argument though?因为你是正确的，这真的是在合理化Because if you are right that this would justify the taking夺走印第安人手中的土地of land in North America from Native Americans如果这是一个很好的论据，who didn't enclose it, if it's a good argument,那么洛克使得这一行为正义化了then Locke's given us a justification for that.如果这是一个不好的论据，那么洛克给我们带来的只不过是一个If it's a bad argument, then Locke's given us a mere在道义上站不住脚的辩护rationalization that isn't morally defensible.- 我倾向于后者- 你倾向于后者I'm leaning to the second one- You're leaning toward the second one.但这只是我自己的观点But that's my opinion as well.好，那么我们来听听是否有人All right, well, then, let's hear if there is a defender要为洛克对私有财产的观点辩护of Locke's account of private property,如果还能解决Rochelle的担忧那就更好了and it would be interesting if they could address Rochelle's worryRochelle担忧，这只是为美国殖民者that this is just a way of defending the appropriation夺取印地安人土地行为of land by the American colonists from the Native Americans的一种辩护罢了who didn't enclose it.谁来为洛克的这一观点辩护？Is there someone who will defend Locke on that point?你要为洛克辩护么？Are you going to defend Locke?你指责了洛克正义化了欧洲人Like, you're accusing him of justifying the European屠杀印第安人的行为basically massacre of the Native Americans.但是，谁说洛克是在辩护呢？But who says he is defending it?也许，欧洲殖民是不对的Maybe the European colonization isn't right.也许，这是洛克在《政府论(下篇)》谈到的You know, maybe it's the state of war that he talked about战争状态in his Second Treatise, you know. （指Second Treatise of Government一书）而美洲原住民和殖民者、移民者之间的战争So the wars between the Native Americans and the colonists,可能就是洛克所说的战争状态，我们只能the settlers, that might have been a state of war that we can only通过签订协议或者达成共识来摆脱战争emerge from by an agreement or an act of consent而这需要公正来解决……and that's what would have been required fairly to resolve...是的，双方都得同意并落实Yes, and both sides would have had to agree to it and carry it out and everything.- 但在什么时候，你叫什么名字？- DanBut what about when, what's your name? - Dan.但是，Dan，你对Rochelle对27节But Dan, what about Rochelle says this argument in Section 27以及32节关于挪用土地的意见怎么看and then in 32 about appropriating land,