除非它们是公开提供。unless they're publicly provided.但我们有办法来防止搭便车。But there are ways to prevent free riders.有办法来限制看起来像是公众利益的There are ways to restrict even seemingly collective goods例如消防like fire protection.我读了一篇文章，一则关于私人消防公司的文章I read an article a while back about a private fire company,在阿肯色州的一个叫Salem的消防公司the Salem Fire Corporation, in Arkansas.你可以到Salem消防公司申请You can sign up with the Salem Fire Corporation,每年支付一定的费用，如果你的房子着火了，pay a yearly subscription fee, and if your house catches on fire,他们会来救火。they will come and put out the fire.但他们不会把每个人就出来But they won't put out everybody's fire.他们只会帮助那些报了名的顾客灭火They will only put it out if it's a fire in the home或者火势蔓延威胁到of a subscriber or if it starts to spread and to threaten另外一个顾客的家the home of a subscriber.这篇新闻报道了一个屋主的故事The newspaper article just told the story of a home owner这个房主在过去都订了这家公司的服务who had subscribed to this company in the past but failed但没有及时的续约to renew his subscription.当他的房子着火后His house caught on fire.Salem消防公司的卡车来了The Salem Fire Corporation showed up with its trucks只是袖手旁观，看着房子烧毁and watched the house burn,为的是确保火势没有扩散just making sure that it didn't spread.有人问消防队长。实际上他也不是真正的消防队长。The fire chief was asked, well, he wasn't exactly the fire chief.我猜他是CEO。I guess he was the CEO.有人问，你怎么能站在消防设备旁边He was asked how can you stand by with fire equipment and allow看着别人的家被烧毁了？a person's home to burn?他回答说，我们一旦核实，火势没有危及到我们的会员的家He replied, once we verified there was no danger to a member's property,根据我们的规定，我们没有选择，只能旁观we had no choice but to back off according to our rules.如果我们去扑灭所有的火灾，他说If we responded to all fires, he said, there would be no incentive大家就没必要去订我们的服务了。to subscribe.在这种情况下，房主试图在在火灾现场The homeowner in this case tried to renew his subscription当场续约at the scene of the fire.但该公司的负责人拒绝。But the head of the company refused.你不能先毁坏你的车，接着去买保险You can't wreck your car, he said, and then buy insurance for it later.因此，即使是一些我们认为是So even public goods that we take for granted政府理所当然应该负责的公众事物that's being within the proper province of government在原则上，它们也是可以被分离出来can many of them in principle be isolated,专门只给那些交了钱的人服务made exclusive to those who pay.这一切都与公众财产That's all to do with the question of collective goods和自由主义反对的家长式有关 。and the libertarians injunction against paternalism.但让我们先回到收入再分配的问题。But let's go back now to the arguments about redistribution.现在，自由主义的关于“最小国家”的基本问题Now, underlying the libertarian's case for the minimal state是强制。但强制错在哪里？is a worry about coercion, but what's wrong with coercion?自由主义给了这样一个答案：The libertarian offers this answer:为了大众的福祉，而利用一些人是错误的To coerce someone, to use some person for the sake of the general welfare因为它质疑了一个基本事实，即我们拥有和支配我们自己is wrong because it calls into question the fundamental fact that we own ourselves质疑了我们自我支配、自由占有的这一道德事实the fundamental moral fact of self possession or self ownership.自由主义反对再分配的论点始于The libertarian's argument against redistribution begins with我们能支配自己这一基本思想this fundamental idea that we own ourselves.Nozick说，如果整个社会都到比尔盖茨Nozick says that if the society as a whole can go to Bill Gates或者乔丹那里，通过税收拿去他们的财富or go to Michael Jordan and tax away a portion of their wealth,那样的话，我们等于是说我们的社会财产就在what the society is really asserting is a collective property right比尔盖茨或者乔丹那里。in Bill Gates or in Michael Jordan.这违反了一个基本原则：我们属于我们自己But that violates the fundamental principle that we belong to ourselves.我们已经听过了反对自由主义的一些意见。Now, we've already heard a number of objections to the libertarian argument.我想今天要听一下支持自由主义的声音What I would like to do today is to give the libertarians among us让他们有机会回应这一些反对的声音a chance to answer the objections that have been raised and some have been一些人已经表明了立场，同意到这里来some have already identified themselves and have agreed to come and make给那些反对自由主义的意见the case for libertarianism to reply to the objections一个回应that have been raised.举起你的手，如果你是其中一位自由主义者So raise your hand if you are among the libertarians准备来支持自由主义，回应那些异议who's prepared to stand up for the theory and respond to the objections.你是？You are?Alex Harris。Alex Harris.我是那位在博客挺有名的Alex HarrisAlex Harris, who's been a star on the web blog.好吧，Alex，到这里来All right, Alex, come here.站起来。走到这里。Stand up. Come.我们将在这里建立一个自由主义者的角落。We'll create a libertarian corner over here.还有谁？And who else?还有其他想加入自由主义的？你叫什么名字？Other libertarians who will join. What's your name?John？John. John?John Sheffield。Sheffield. John Sheffield.还有谁愿意加入？Who else wants to join?其他勇敢的自由主义者Other brave libertarians who are prepared to take on是的，你叫什么名字？Julia Rotto。Yes, what's your name? Julia Rotto.Julia Rotto。到我们这边来Julia Rotto. Julia, come join us over there.现在，当自由主义者这边Now, while the – while team libertarianJulie, John, Alex。Julie, John, Alex.当自由主义者在这里聚集时，While team libertarian is gathering over there,让我总结一下，在课堂上和在网站上let me just summarize the main objections that I've heard我所听到的主要的反对意见。in class and on the website.我来到这边Objection number one– and here I'll come down to我想对着这边的自由主义者们I wanna talk to team libertarian over here.反对意见一：穷人更需要钱。So objection number one is that the poor need the money more.这点很明显。穷人不仅需要钱，而且比盖茨和乔丹That's an obvious objection, a lot more than -- thanks –更需要钱than do Bill Gates and Michael Jordan.反对意见二：税收不能算是奴隶Objection number two, it's not really slavery to tax because至少在一个民主社会里，它不算是奴隶at least in a democratic society it's not a slave holder.这是个人民大会，代表民主It's congress. It's a democratic—Alex已经笑了you're smiling, Alex, already.你确信你可以回答所有这些问题？You're confident you can reply to all of these?因此，经过大家同意的税收不算是非强制性So taxation by consent of the governed is not coercive.反对意见三：一些人表示，像盖茨这类的成功人Third, some people have said don't the successful like Gates他们的成功归功于对社会，他们有义务通过缴纳来回馈社会owe a debt to society for their success that they repay by paying taxes.谁愿意来回应第一点Who wants to respond to the first one,穷人更需要钱？the poor need the money more?好的，你是吧？JohnAll right, and you're? John.John。好的，JohnJohn. All right, John, what's the, here I'll hold it.好的。穷人更需要钱。All right. The poor need the money more.这是相当明显的。我可以使用这笔钱。That's quite obvious. I could use the money.我当然不会介意，如果比尔盖茨You know, I certainly wouldn't mind if Bill Gates give给我1百万me a million dollars.我的意思是，我会要一千。I mean, I'd take a thousand.但在某些方面，你要明白But at some point you have to understand that重新分配财富并没有the benefits of redistribution of wealth don't justify the initial让一开始大家财产平均violation of the property right.如果你看看，穷人更需要钱这个观点If you look at the argument the poor need the money more,这个说法并没有违背at no point in that argument do you contradict the fact that我们经过推断、大家都同意的原则we've extrapolated from, agreed upon principles即我们拥有和支配自己这一原则that people own themselves.我们推断出，我们有财产支配权，因此We've extrapolated that people have property rights and so whether or not不管税收是否是一件好事，甚至it would be a good thing or a nice thing or even对一些人的生存来说，是一件必须的事情a necessary thing for the survival of some people,我们并没有看到，通过税收就能不违背we don't see that that justifies the violation of the right我们已经推断出来的原则that we've logically extrapolated.好的。Good. Okay.因此，我的意思是，仍然存在着这样一个机构And so that also, I mean, there still exist this institution譬如私人的慈善事业of like individual philanthropy.Milton Friedman 做了一个论断Milton Friedman makes this argument-好的，比尔盖茨捐钱给慈善机构，如果他愿意的话All right, so Bill Gates can give to charity if he wants to.对。Right.但是，如果胁迫他这样做的话，仍然是错误的But it would still be wrong to coerce him.没错。Exactly.为了满足穷人的需要。To meet the needs of the poor.没错。Exactly.你们两个对这个回答满意吗？Are the two of you happy with that reply?有没有要补充的？好的，Julie？Anything to add? All right, go ahead. Julie?Julie，是的。我想我还可以补充一点。没关系。Julia, yes. I think I can also add, it's okay.我想我可以补充一点，需要 和 应得I guess I could add that there's a difference between needing something之间是有区别的and deserving something.我的意思是，在一个理想的社会里每个人的需求将会得到满足I mean, in an ideal society everyone's needs would be met但我们在这里争论的是，什么是我们应该得到的but here we're arguing what do we deserve as a society and, yeah.这些利益并不是穷人应该得到的And the poor don't deserve don't deserve the benefits通过征税，用乔丹的钱来帮助他们that would flow from taxing Michael Jordan to help them.根据我们已经讨论过的，我不认为Based on what we've covered here I don't think you deserve这样的东西是我们应得的r />你们中有人想到 要怎么说?Does anyone have an idea of how you might be able to do that?好， 请站起来回答 Yes? Stand up.我会说，如果一开始，我真的把我的朋友藏在我家，I was just going to say if I were to let my friend in my house to hide in the first place,我会先和他们 定好计划I'd probably make a plan with them我会说 “嘿 等下我会告诉杀手你在这儿，你赶紧逃吧”so I'd be like, "Hey I'll tell the murderer you're here, but escape, "这是其中的一个选择and that's one of the options mentioned.我不确定 这是不是康德式的选择。你还是在撒谎。But I'm not sure that's a Kantian option. You're still lying though.不。因为他当时是在屋子里，但是之后不会在（我叫他逃跑）No. Because he's in the house but he won't be.我明白了。 好 很好，还有人有想法么Oh I see. All right, good enough. One more try.你说，我不知道他在哪 就好If you just say you don't know where he is因为他也许不在衣柜里 because he might not be locked in the closet.他可能离开了衣柜。你真的不知道他在哪。He might have left the closet. You have no clue where he could be.所以，我说我不知道他在哪，算不上说谎So you would say, I don't know which wouldn't actually be a lie因为你在那个时候，不是在看着衣柜。because you weren't at that very moment looking in the closet.对，所以严格来说，你说的是真话Exactly. -So it would be strictly speaking true.对Yes.但也有可能带有欺骗性，误导性。但仍然是真话And yet possibly deceiving, misleading. -But still true.你的名字是？约翰What's your name? -John.约翰。约翰也许意识到了某些东西John. All right, John has... now John may be on to something.约翰，你给我们大家提供了一个很机智的托词John you're really offering us the option of a clever evasion它严格上来说 是真话that is strictly speaking true.这就给我们带来了一个问题，This raises the question完全的谎言和误导的真相 这两者在道德上 有区别么？whether there is a moral difference between an outright lie and a misleading truth.从康德的观点看来，一个谎言和一个误导的真相，有天壤之别From Kant's point of view there actually is a world of difference between a lie and a misleading truth.为什么？ 即使这两者带来的结果是一样的？Why is that even though both might have the same consequences?记得，康德并不是 把 道德 建立在结果之上的But then remember Kant doesn't base morality on consequences.他认为 道德 就是对道德法则的遵守He bases it on formal adherence to the moral law.有时候，在日常生活中，我们会破例地使用"善意的谎言"Now, sometimes in ordinary life we make exceptions for the general rule against lying with the white lie.什么是善意的谎言？ What is a white lie?它是一种谎言来用来... 比如，为了避免伤害别人的感情It's a lie to make...you're well to avoid hurting someone's feelings for example.它是一种我们用它带来的结果来让它成为合理解释的谎言It's a lie that we think of as justified by the consequences.