更加平等的理论Rawls's more egalitarian theory.即差异原则The difference principle.目前为止 一共有三种观点There are at least three objections反对Rawls的差异原则to Rawls's difference principle.其中一个观点是你们中的一员One of them came up last time in the discussion在上节课的讨论中提出来的and a number of you raised this worry.积极性又该如何平衡?What about incentives?如果边际税率达到了70% 80% 甚至90%Isn't there the risk, if taxes reach 70, 80, 90 percent marginal rate难道不怕迈克尔·乔丹不再打球了吗?that Michael Jordan won't play basketball?难道不怕David Letterman不再做晚间秀了吗?That David Letterman won't do late night comedy?又或者执行总裁们都跳槽去别的行业了?Or that CEOs will go into some other line of work?在座的 有没有哪位Rawls理论的支持者Now, who among those who are defenders of Rawls来回答一下 关于反对派提出的 激励的必要性who has an answer to this objection about进行简单的辩护?the need for incentives?好的 请说 站起来吧Yes. Go ahead, stand up.Rawls的观点是 要帮助那些最不富裕的人Rawls's idea is that there should only be so much difference有很多种不同的可行方法that it helps the least well off the most.所以 如果过分强调平等 那么最不富裕的人们So if there's too much equality, then the least well off就不会有机会看晚间秀might not be able to watch late night TV,或者根本不会有工作 因为他们的总裁不想工作or might not have a job because their CEO doesn't want to work.所以你只需要找到两者之间正确的平衡点So you need to find the correct balance where即税收仍然会给佼佼者带来激励 以便贫困者能够从佼佼者taxation still leaves enough incentive to least well off to benefit- 当中受益 - 很好- from the talents. - Good.- 你叫什么名字? - 我叫Tim- And what's your name? - Tim.Tim 很好 Tim说 实际上Tim. Alright, so Tim is saying, in effect,Rawls考虑到了激励因素的问题that Rawls is taking count of incentives.并且考虑到了薪酬差异And could allow for pay differentials and和税率的调整for some adjustment in the tax rate对激励因素的影响to take account of incentives.但是 Tim指出But, Tim points out,激励因素应当被考虑在内的这一观点 不应该立足于the standpoint from which the question of incentives needs to be considered只看到对这块经济蛋糕规模的影响is not the effect on the total size of the economic pie.而应该立足于探究But instead from the standpoint of the effect激励因素或抑制因素of incentives, or disincentives,对底层人民的福利的影响on the well-being of those on the bottom.对吗?Right?很好 谢谢你Good. Thank you.我想那也是Rawls想要说的I think that is what Rawls would say.实际上 如果你看了第17节In fact, if you look in section 17,你就会了解 他在阐述差异原则时where he describes the difference principle,是考虑到了激励因素的he allows for incentives."那些在天赋上占优势的人"The naturally advantaged are not gain不能仅仅因为他们天赋较高而得益merely because they are more gifted,而只能通过抵消训练和教育费用but only to cover the costs of training and education和用他们的天赋帮助较不利者而得益"and for using their endowments in ways that help less fortunate as well."所以你可以采取激励措施 你可以调整税率So you can have incentives. You can adjust the tax rate.如果从David Letterman那里拿走得太多If taking too much from David Letterman或是从迈克尔·乔丹和比尔·盖茨那儿拿得太多or from Michael Jordan, or from Bill Gates,最终只会损害底层人们的利益winds up actually hurting those at the bottom.这就是证明That's the test.所以激励因素 并不是反对Rawls的差异原则的So incentives, that's not a decisive objections against决定性异议Rawls's difference principle.还有两个更有重量的 更难解释的反对观点But there are two weightier, more difficult objections.其中之一One of them来自于精英理念的拥护者们comes from defenders of a meritocratic conception.他们争论说 那么个人的努力呢?The argument that says, what about effort?只要是努力工作的人What about people working hard就应该完全拥有他们获得的一切having a right to what they earn因为这是他们应得的because they've deserved it.他们为此付出了努力和汗水They've worked hard for it.这是来自于个人努力和道德褒贬方面的反对意见That's the objection from effort and moral desert.还有另外一种反对观点Then there's another objection.来自于自由主义者That comes from libertarians.此反对意见旨在于重申古典自由主义中的And this objection has to do with reasserting the idea自我所有权of self-ownership.把天赋和才能Doesn't the difference principle, by treating看作是共同资产的差异原则our natural talents and endowments as common assets,难道没有违背自我所有权的理论吗?doesn't that violate the idea that we own ourselves?现在 让我首先来解决Now, let me deal first,从自由主义层面衍生的反对意见with the objection that comes from the libertarian direction.Milton Friedman(美国经济学家)在他说的书中写道 "自由地选择"Milton Friedman writes, in his book, "Free to Choose,""生活本就是不公平的"Life is not fair.相信政府可以纠正自然产生的东西And it's tempting to believe that government can rectify"也是诱人的what nature has spawned."他的观点是But his answer is,"唯一能够有效解决生活中不平等的方法"The only way to try to rectify that is to have就是追求结果的平等"a leveling equality of outcome."每个人都以相同的起跑点为基础完成这场比赛Everyone finishing the race at the same point.那将会是一场灾难And that would be a disaster.这是一个容易辩驳的论题This is an easy argument to answer.Rawls对此做出了回应And Rawls addresses it.我认为 公平论中最具有In one of the most powerful passages, I think,说服力的章节of the theory of justice.就是第17节It's in Section 17."自然分配" 在这里他提到了"The natural distribution", and here he's talking about自然才能的分配the natural distribution talents and endowments."... 它无所谓公平不公平"... is neither just nor unjust."人降生于社会的某一特殊地位也说不上不公平"Nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position.这些只是自然的事实These are simply natural facts.公平或不公平 只是制度处理这些事实的What is just and unjust is the way that institutions方式而已deal with these facts."这就是他对推行自由主义政策的经济学家们的回答That's his answer to libertarian laissez faire economists就像Milton Friedman说的 "生活是不公平的 要学会克服它"like Milton Friedman who say, "Life is unfair but get over it."克服它 让我们看看自己是否能做到 至少Get over it and let's see if we can, at least,要尽可能把不公平结果所产生的效益最大化maximize the benefits that flow from it.其实 像Milton Friedman这样的自由主义经济学家们But the more powerful libertarian objection to Rawls对Rawls的理论的反对 并不是自由主义学派中最强烈的is not libertarian from the libertarian economists like Milton Friedman.真正强烈的反对观点是有关自我所有权的争论It's from the argument about self-ownership.Nozick(美国政治哲学家)对此进行了深入探讨Developed as we saw, in Nozick.从自我所有权的观点来看And from that point of view,是的 这也许会是一件好事yes, it might be a good thing,创立早期智力开发项目和公立学校to create head start programs and public schools这样每个人都可以接受良好的教育so that everyone can go to a decent school然后站在同一起跑线上开始比赛and start the race at the same starting line.那应该很不错That might be good.然而 如果你向人们征税来创立学校But if you tax people to create public schools,如果人们并不是自愿缴税if you tax people against their will,你就是在强迫他们you coerce them.这是另一种形式的盗窃It's a form of theft.如果你以税收的形式 强行拿走LettermanIf you take some of Letterman's $31 million,那3100万美元薪酬的一部分来支持公立学校tax it away to support public schools, against his will,那么政府此举与盗取他人财产无异the state is really doing no better than stealing from him.这是高压政策It's coercion.理由是 我们在拥有天赋和才能的时候And the reason is, we have to think of ourselves得想想我们自己as owning our talents and endowments.否则 我们就会后退到只会利用别人 胁迫别人的时代Because otherwise we're back to just using people and coercing people.这是自由主义的观点That's the libertarian reply.Rawls对此有何解释呢?What's Rawls's answer to that objection?他没有直接地对自我所有权这一观点进行辩驳He doesn't address the idea of self-ownership directly.但他对差异原则的论证所产生的But the effect, the moral weight of his argument道义影响 却是深远的for the difference principle is,就其绝对意义而言 也许我们根本就没有自我所有权maybe we don't own ourselves in that thoroughgoing sense after all.但是 他说 这并不意味着政府Now, he says, this doesn't mean that the state是我的财产所有者 就其意义而言它只能is an owner in me, in the sense that it can simply调拨它们而已commandeer my life.因为 请记住 我们之所以赞成Because remember, the first principle站在无知的面纱的背后来保证公平we would agree to behind the veil of ignorance,最重要的原则就是 平等的基本自由原则is the principle of equal basic liberties.言论自由 宗教自由Freedom of speech, religious liberty,信仰自由等等freedom of conscience and the like.所以 自我所有权So the only respect能够为之让步的唯一方面in which the idea of self-ownership must give way,就在于 当我们开始思考comes when we're thinking about whether在市场经济条件下