哈佛课程 公正：该如何做是好 中英双语-21

请记住，正是由于我们决定要离开自然状态Remember, the state of nature is the condition that才导致了“同意” 的出现we decide to leave, and that's what gives rise to consent.为什么不呆在自然状态呢？ 为什么要有政府呢？Why not stay there? Why bother with government at all?那么，洛克是怎么回答这个问题的？Well, what is Locke's answer to that question?他说，在自然状态下，有不方便的地方He says there are some inconveniences in the state of nature但那些不便是什么？but what are those inconveniences?主要的不便是每个人都可以执行The main inconvenience is that everyone can enforce自然法则the law of nature.人人都是实施者，或者引用洛克的话Everyone is an enforcer, or what Locke calls自然状态下的“执行者”，他确实是这么说"the executor" of the state of nature, and he means executor literally.如果有人违反了自然法则，If someone violates the law of nature,他就是一个侵犯者，他是不理性的he is an aggressor. He is beyond reason那么你就可以惩罚他。and you can punish him.而且在自然的状态下，你无须And you don't have to be too careful or fine about对惩罚的程度小心翼翼gradations of punishment in the state of nature.你可以杀死他。你绝对可以杀死You can kill him. You can certainly kill跟踪你、企图谋杀你的人someone who comes after you, who tries to murder you.那是自我防卫。That's self defense.但是在自然状态下，人人都可以执行惩罚，But the enforcement power, the right to punish,人人都拥有执行的权力，惩罚的权利。everyone can do the punishing in the state of nature.而且你不仅可以处死那些And not only can you punish with death跟踪你、企图谋杀你的人people who come after you seeking to take your life,你还可以惩罚一个试图偷你东西的小偷you can also punish a thief who tries to steal your goods因为那也被看作是违反了because that also counts as aggression against自然法则the law of nature.如果有人偷了第三者的东西，If someone has stolen from a third party,你也可以去找他。为什么？you can go after him. Why is this?任何违反自然法则的都是侵略行为Well, violations of the law of nature are an act of aggression.这里没有警察，没有法官或者陪审团，There is no police force. There are no judges, no juries,所以人人都是自己的法官。so everyone is the judge in his or her own case.然而洛克发现，当人们成为他们自己的法官时，And Locke observes that when people are the judges他们就倾向于失去理智。of their own cases, they tend to get carry away,而这给自然状态造成了and this gives rise to the inconvenience不便in the state of nature.如果你这位法官对“案情”判断错误，这也就是侵害People overshoot the mark. There is aggression.要受惩罚。而在你意识到你的错误之前，There is punishment and before you know it,人们在享受其不可剥夺的everybody is insecure in the enjoyment of his or her生命权、自由权、财产权时，安全就得不到保障unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.这里，洛克使用了一些严厉、甚至是残酷的词来描述Now, he describes in pretty harsh and even grim terms你可以怎么处置一个违背自然法则的人what you can do to people who violate the law of nature.“你可以杀死，一个要跟你开战的人 ..."One may destroy a man who makes war upon him ...就像，你可以杀死一只攻击你的狼或狮子for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion.这样的人没有别的原则，只有武力和暴力，”Such men have no other rule, but that of force and violence,"听听这段：“所以你可能会成为，别的野兽口中的食物listen to this, "and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those一旦落入他们手中，你就必死无疑dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy to you所以，你得先杀死他们。if you fall into their power", so kill them first.乍一看，自然状态好像很不错So, what starts out as a seemingly benign state of nature在这里每个人都是自由的，尽管这里有一条法则where everyone is free and yet where there is a law这条法则尊重人们的权利，而且这些权利and the law respects people's rights, and those rights are so powerful是如此重要，以至于它们是不可被剥夺that they're unalienable.乍看很美好的东西，一旦你看得近一些What starts out looking very benign, once you look closer,就会发现它很残忍，充满着暴力，而这就是人们想要离开的原因is pretty fierce and filled with violence, and that's why people want to leave.人们怎样离开？这就是“同意”的起源How do they leave? Well, here is where consent comes in.脱离自然状态的唯一途径The only way to escape from the state of nature就是同意：同意放弃“执行权”is to undertake an act of consent where you agree to give up然后建立一个政府或社区the enforcement power and to create a government在这里，有立法机关制定法律or a community where there will be a legislature to make law并且大家都事先同意，每个进来的人and where everyone agrees in advance, everyone who enters,也都事先同意，服从多数人的决定agrees in advance to abide by whatever the majority decides.但是接下来的问题，也就是我们的问题But then the question, and this is our question我想听听你们的观点and here is where I want to get your views,这个问题就是：哪些权力？多数人可以决定什么？then the question is what powers, what can the majority decide?在这里，洛克看起来有些狡猾。因为你们还记得，Now, here, it gets tricky for Locke because you remember,在整个关于“同意”和“多数人的统治”的说法之外，alongside the whole story about consent and majority rule,还有那些自然权利，自然法则，there are these natural rights, the law of nature,那些不可分割的权利，而且你们还记得，these unalienable rights, and you remember,当人们聚在一起建立一个公众社会时，这些东西并没有消失they don't disappear when people join together to create a civil society.所以尽管多数人掌管了权力，So even once the majority is in charge,多数人也不可以侵犯，我们的不可分割的权利，the majority can't violate your inalienable rights,不可以违反我们基本的can't violate your fundamental right to life,生命权、自由权和财产权liberty, and property.所以谜团就在这里：So here is the puzzle.多数人拥有多少权力？How much power does the majority have?由“同意”建立起来的政府，有什么限制性？How limited is the government created by consent?它的有限性在于，多数人有尊重It's limited by the obligation on the part of the majority并且维护公民基本自然权利的义务。to respect and to enforce the fundamental natural rights of the citizens.他们不会放弃这些权利。政府出现后They don't give those up. We don't give those up我们仍然没有放弃这些权利。when we enter government.这就是杰佛逊在《独立宣言》里That's this powerful idea taken over from Locke从洛克那儿拿来的点子。不可分割的权利。by Jefferson in the Declaration. Unalienable rights.那么，让我们谈谈两个案例。还记得迈克尔·乔丹，比尔·盖茨，So, let's go to our two cases. Remember Michael Jordan, Bill Gates,自由主义反对税收来达到重新分配（第3集）the libertarian objection to taxation for redistribution?那么，关于洛克的有限政府呢？Well, what about Locke's limited government?有人认为洛克确实为Is there anyone who thinks that Locke does give grounds反对税收提供了理由吗？for opposing taxation for redistribution?有谁？请讲。Anybody? Go ahead.如果多数人规定必须有税收，If the majority rules that there should be taxation,有少数人仍不须交税even if the minority should still not have to be taxed因为那是在剥夺财产，而财产权是自然权利之一。because that's taking away property, which is one of the rights of nature.好，你叫什么名字？Ben。All right so, and what's your name? - Ben.Ben，所以如果多数人在未经少数人Ben. So if the majority taxes the minority同意的情况下，without the consent of the minority根据一定法律来收税，那等于是to that particular tax law, it does amount to a taking未经他们的同意而剥夺他们的财产，of their property without their consent那么，洛克似乎应该对此表示反对。and it would seem that Locke should object to that.你需要一些原文来支持你的观点，You want some textual support for your view,来支持你对洛克的解读吗，Ben？for your reading of Locke, Ben?当然。Sure.好的。我带了一些来，就是以免你提出这样的问题All right. I brought some along just in case you raised it.要是你有讲义的话，看第138段。If you have your texts, look at 138, passage 138.“最高权力”，洛克指的是立法机关，"The supreme power," by which Locke means the legislature,“未经他的同意，不可以拿走任何人的"cannot take from any man any part of his property任何的财产，因为对财产的保护without his own consent, for the preservation of property不属于‘统治’的范围，而对任何一个being the end of government and that for which men进入社会的人来说，都有必要假设和要求enter into society, it necessarily supposes人们必须拥有财产。”and requires that people should have property."这原本就是人们进入社会的全部原因：That was the whole reason for entering society in the first place,为了保卫财产权。to protect the right to property.而当洛克说到财产权时，And when Locke speaks about the right to property,他通常将它当成一个放诸四海皆准的词汇，he often uses that as a kind of global term for the whole category,生命权，自由权，财产权。the right to life, liberty, and property.所以洛克的这段话，第138段的开头，So that part of Locke, that beginning of 138,似乎是印证了Ben的解读。但第138段的其他部分呢，seems to support Ben's reading. But what about the part of 138,如果你们继续读下去：“因此，在社会中if you keep reading, "Men, therefore, in society人们拥有财产，根据大家所建立的法律having property, they have such a right to the goods,人们拥有物品的所有权”which by the law of the community are theirs."再看看这段：Look at this.“而且没人可以未经他们的同意夺走这些财产。”"And that no one can take from them without their consent."然后在这段的结尾，他说：And then at the end of this passage, he says,“所以认为立法权可以随意妄为、"So it's a mistake to think that the legislative power可以任意地处置其成员的财产、can do what it will and dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily或夺走其中任何一部分的想法，都是错误的。”or take any part of them at pleasure."这就让人捉摸不透了：Here's what's elusive.一方面，他说政府不可以On the one hand, he says the government未经你的同意而夺走你的财产。can't take your property without your consent.他的意思很明确。但是他接着又说道，He is clear about that. But then he goes on to say,而那是对财产的自然权利。and that's the natural right to property.但是接着你会发现，似乎被认为是“财产”的东西，But then, it seems that property, what counts as property并不是自然的，而是被政府is not natural but conventional所约定俗成的defined by the government.“那些根据团体法律属于他们的财物。”"The goods of which by the law of the community are theirs."而如果你看一下第140段，情况将更加复杂And the plot thickens if you look ahead to Section 140.第140段，他说道：“没有大量的经费支持，In 140, he says, "Governments can't be supported政府就无法运行。