如果那个论据是正确的，这就会正义化that argument, if it's valid, would justify the settlers' appropriating移民者们占据土地的行为that land and excluding others from it,你认为这论据是一个很好的论据么？you think that argument is a good argument?恩，这不就是在暗示Well, doesn't it kind of imply that the Native Americans印第安人自己没有这样做过？hadn't already done that?恩，印第安人仅仅狩猎、采集Well, the Native Americans, as hunter-gatherers,他们并没有实际上占领土地didn't actually enclose land.因此，我认为Rochelle想说的是这个So I think Rochelle is onto something there.- 我想……- 继续讲， DanWhat I want to -- go ahead, Dan.同时，他也说过，只要在某块的土地上At the same time, he is saying that just by picking捡捡橡树果实、摘摘苹果，或者杀一头水牛an acorn or taking an apple or maybe killing a buffalo这块土地就归你所有on a certain amount of land, that makes it yours因为这有你的劳动，而你的劳动为你圈取了这片土地because it's your labor and your labor would enclose that land.因此，根据洛克的定义， 也许印第安人没有绕着这块地So by that definition, maybe they didn't have fences竖起围栏，但不……around little plots of land but didn't...他们正在使用这片土地They were using it.是的，根据洛克的定义，你可以说Yes. By Locke's definition, you can say...因此，也许在洛克的定义里， 印第安人So maybe by Locke's definition, the Native Americans也可以宣称拥有这块土地的所有权could have claimed a property right in the land itself.是的，但正如她所说，他们只是没有站在洛克一边，Right, but they just didn't have Locke on their side, as she points out.好，很好。再来一个洛克的辩护者。请All right, good. Okay, that's good. One more defender of Locke. Go ahead.我的意思是，为了捍卫洛克Well, I mean, just to defend Locke,他的确说过，有些时候he does say that there are some times in which你不能拿走别人的土地you can't take another person's land.例如，你不能拿走公有土地For example, you can't acquire a land that is common property so people,对美洲的印第安人来说，我感觉他们已经建立了in terms of the American Indians, I feel like they already have他们自己的文明，他们共同使用着这块土地civilizations themselves and they were using land in common.那么，这有点像是他说过的So it's kind of like what an analogy to what he was talking about英国人共有财产的一个类比。你不能拿走with like the common English property. You can't take land that大家共同享有的土地everybody is sharing in common.噢，很有趣，那很有趣Oh, that's interesting. That's interesting.还有，你不能拿走土地，除非你确保And also, you can't take land unless you make sure还有足够多的土地供其他人使用that there is as much land as possible left for other people to take as well.因此 如果打算拿走公有土地，你必须确保So if you're taking common, so you have to make sure还有足够多的剩余土地that whenever you take land that there is enough left供他人使用……- 对for other people to use... - Right.而且，剩下的土地和你拿走的土地是一样好的……...that's just as good as the land that you took, so...没错，洛克说过，私有财产权必须得That's true. Locke says there has to be this right确保有足够多、足够好的留给其他人to private property in the earth is subject to the provision你叫什么名字？that there be as much and as good left for others. What's your name?对，我叫FengRight. I'm Feng.Feng，在某种程度上你也同意DanSo Feng, in a way, agrees with Dan that maybe there is在洛克的框架内a claim within Locke's framework that could be developed on behalf也许美洲原住民。下面的问题是of the Native Americans. Here is the further question.如果私有财产权是与生俱来的，而不是约定俗成的If the right to private property is natural, not conventional,如果它是在政府出现之前，我们就拥有的if it's something that we acquire even before we agree to government,那么，这种权利如何限制合法政府能做的事情呢？how does that right constrain what a legitimate government can do?最后，为了看看洛克究竟是自由主义In order, finally, to see whether Locke is an ally的支持者，还是潜在的批评者or potentially a critic of the libertarian idea of the state,我们得问，我们一旦进入了社会we have to ask what becomes of our natural rights什么将成为我们的自然权利？once we enter into society.我们知道，我们进入社会是经过大家的同意、协议We know that the way we enter into society is by consent, by agreement以脱离自然状态，并被大多数人to leave the state of nature and to be governed by the majority被法律体系、人类制定的法律所管辖and by a system of laws, human laws.但这些法律，只有在尊重我们的自然权利But those human laws are only legitimate尊重我们不可分割的生命、自由和财产权的条件下if they respect our natural rights, if they respect our unalienable rights才是合法的。没有哪个议会或立法机构to life, liberty, and property. No parliament, no legislature,不论它是多么民主，都不能侵犯however democratic its credentials, can legitimately violate我们的自然权利our natural rights.没有法律可以侵犯我们的生命权、自由权和财产权This idea that no law can violate our right to life, liberty, and property这似乎是支持有限政府的would seem to support the idea of a government so limited所以，很讨自由主义者的欢心that it would gladden the heart of the libertarian after all.但是自由主义者却不该高兴得这么早But those hearts should not be so quickly gladdened because即使对洛克来说，国家建立之后even though for Locke, the law of nature persists自然法则依然存在，尽管洛克坚持有限政府once government arrives, even though Locke insists政府要受限于创建它的人on limited government, government limited by the end即保护我们的财产不受侵犯for which it was created, namely the preservation of property,即便如此，这里还有一个关键点：怎么才算是我的财产even so, there is an important sense in which what counts as my property,怎样才算尊重我的生命和自由权？what counts as respecting my life and liberty而这是由政府来界定的are for the government to define.哪些属于财产权，怎么才算尊重生命权和自由权That there be property, that there be respect这些是限制政府的所在for life and liberty is what limits government.但是，怎样才算尊重我的生命和财产权But what counts as respecting my life and respecting my property,却是由政府来决定和定义的that is for governments to decide and to define.怎么会这样呢？How can that be?洛克不是在自打嘴巴么？还是说这里有一个Is Locke contradicting himself or is there an important重要的区别？distinction here?为了回答这个问题，这决定了洛克究竟是否与In order to answer that question, which will decide Locke's fit自由主义的观点一致，我们需要仔细研究with the libertarian view, we need to look closely洛克所指的合法政府是什么样的？at what legitimate government looks like for Locke,我们将在下一次探讨and we turn to that next time.收入就好像鞋子：太小了会挤脚，太大了会摔跤。---约翰洛克"Our incomes are like our shoes: if too small, they gall and pinch us;but if too large, they cause us to stumble and to trip." ---John Locke上一次 我们开始讨论洛克所说的自然状态Last time, we began to discuss Locke's state of nature,他的私有财产的观点，他的合法政府理论his account of private property, his theory of legitimate government,即政府是基于人们的同意而设立，以及有限政府which is government based on consent and also limited government.洛克相信一些基本权利限制了Locke believes in certain fundamental rights that constrain什么是政府可以做的what government can do, and he believes that those rights洛克相信，这些权利是自然权利，而不是靠法律are natural rights, not rights that flow from law或政府来赋予or from government.洛克的哲学实验就是看看And so Locke's great philosophical experiment他能否提供一种理由来解释，is to see if he can give an account of how there could be a right在政府和立法会议员出现之前to private property without consent before government and legislators为什么就有财产权arrive on the scene to define property.这就是他的问题，也是他的主张That's his question. That's his claim.洛克认为，建立产权有一种方法There is a way Locke argues to create property,不仅是采摘、打猎所得属于我们not just in the things we gather and hunt,还包括土地本身，只要我们给其他人留下了but in the land itself, provided there is enough足够多、足够好的土地and as good left for others.今天，我想谈谈关于同意的问题Today, I want to turn to the question of consent,这是洛克的第二个想法which is Locke's second big idea.私人财产是其中一个，同意是另一个Private property is one; consent is the other.同意的作用是什么？What is the work of consent?这里已经有人提到过同意People here have been invoking the idea of consent自从一开始，从第一个星期开始since we began since the first week.你们还记得我们在（第1集）讨论Do you remember when we were talking about将桥上的胖子推下桥（来救活5个工人）时，有人说pushing the fat man off the bridge, someone said,“但他没有同意去牺牲自己”"But he didn't agree to sacrifice himself.如果他同意的话，情况就不同了“It would be different if he consented."或当我们讨论到是否（也是第1集）Or when we were talking about the cabin boy,杀死并吃掉船上那个男孩时killing and eating the cabin boy.有些人说 “嗯，如果他们都同意抽签Some people said, "Well, if they had consented情况就会不一样to a lottery, it would be different.（经过同意）那样就可以（杀掉那个男孩）Then it would be all right."因此，同意这个词已经出现了很多次。而关于同意这个问题，So consent has come up a lot and here in John Locke,洛克是其中一位大哲学家之一we have one of the great philosophers of consent.同意，是道德哲学和政治哲学里Consent is an obvious familiar idea in moral是一个很明显、很熟悉的概念and political philosophy.洛克说，合法政府是建立在同意的基础上的Locke says that legitimate government is government founded今天，有谁不同意他的观点？on consent and who, nowadays, would disagree with him?有时候，当政治哲学家的思想Sometimes, when the ideas of political philosophers跟“同意”这个概念一样熟悉的时候are as familiar as Locke's ideas about consent,我们就很难理解它，或至少觉得它很有趣it's hard to make sense of them or at least to find them very interesting.但，作为合法政府存在的基础——同意But there are some puzzles, some strange features洛克对这个概念的解释，有些让人疑惑of Locke's account of consent让人觉得奇怪as the basis of legitimate government而这就是我今天要讨论的and that's what I'd like to take up today.验证洛克的“同意论”是否合理One way of testing the plausibility of Locke's idea并同时探讨这些困惑的一个方法就是看看of consent and also of probing some of its perplexities基于同意而建立的合法政府is to ask just what a legitimate government能够做什么founded on consent can do, what are its powers它有什么权力according to Locke.为了回答这个问题Well, in order to answer that question,回想自然状态是什么样的it helps to remember what the state of nature is like.