哈佛大学公开课第3讲（幽默的哈佛大学公开课-）

Nicola, if you didn't think you'd get caught, would you pay your taxes? - I don't think so. I would rather have a system personally that I would—I could give money to exactly those sections of the government I support and not just blanket support of it. - You'd rather be in the state of nature, at least on April 15th. - Exactly.，今天小编就来说说关于哈佛大学公开课第3讲?下面更多详细答案一起来看看吧!

哈佛大学公开课第3讲

Nicola, if you didn't think you'd get caught, would you pay your taxes? - I don't think so. I would rather have a system personally that I would—I could give money to exactly those sections of the government I support and not just blanket support of it. - You'd rather be in the state of nature, at least on April 15th. - Exactly.

妮可拉，假如不会被抓，你还会缴税吗？- 应该不会，我个人更希望有个机制让我能把钱给那些我所支持的个别部门，而不是给所有政府部门。- 所以至少在四月十五日，你宁愿处于自然状态。（四月十五日:美国税务申报日）- 没错。

Last time, we began to discuss Locke's state of nature, his account of private property, his theory of legitimate government, which is government based on consent and also limited government. Locke believes in certain fundamental rights constrain what government can do, and he believes that those rights are natural rights, not rights that flow from law or from government.

上节课，我们讨论了洛克所说的自然状态，他的私有财产观点，他的合法政府理论，即政府是建立在同意基础上的，并且是有限政府。洛克认为有些基本权利能限制政府的行为，并认为这些权利都是自然权利，不是由法律或政府赋予的。

And so Locke's great philosophical experiment is to see if he can give an account of how there could be a right to private property without consent before government and legislators arrive on the scene to define property. That's his question. That's his claim.

洛克伟大的哲学实验就在于他能否说明以下问题，私有财产权是怎么能够不经过同意，在政府和法律出现并界定财产前就已存在。这是他的疑问，他的主张。

There is a way Locke argues to create property, not just in the things we gather and hunt, but in the land itself, provided there is enough and as good left for others. Today, I want to turn to the question of consent, which is Locke's second big idea. Private property is one; consent is the other.

洛克认为有种创造财富的办法，不仅包括我们采集捕猎到的东西，还有土地本身，只要还有足够多足够好的留给别人。今天，我想谈谈同意的问题，这是洛克的第二大观点。私有财产是第一个，同意是第二个。

What is the work of consent? People here have been invoking the idea of consent since we began since the first week.

同意的作用是什么？从我们开始上课的第一周开始，大家一直在引用同意这个观点。

You remember when we were talking about pushing the fat man off the bridge, someone said, "But he didn't agree to sacrifice himself. It would be different if he consented."

还记得第一讲谈到的把胖子推下桥的例子，有人就说，“但他没同意去牺牲自己啊。如果他同意就是另一回事了。”

Or when we were talking about the cabin boy, killing and eating the cabin boy. Some people said, "Well, if they had consented to a lottery, it would be different. Then it would be all right."

还有第二讲里独木艇上那个男孩，被杀掉吃掉。有人说，“如果他们同意采取抽签方式，那就不一样了，那样就是可以的。”

So consent has come up a lot and here in John Locke, we have one of the great philosophers of consent. Consent is an obvious familiar idea in moral and political philosophy.

同意出现频率很高，本课将讲到最伟大的哲学家之一约翰·洛克对同意的看法。同意这个概念在道德和政治哲学中很常见。

Locke says that legitimate government is government founded on consent and who, nowadays, would disagree with him? Sometimes, when the ideas of political philosophers are as familiar as Locke's ideas about consent, it's hard to make sense of them or at least to find them very interesting.

洛克说合法政府是建立在同意的基础上，而现如今又有谁会不同意他的观点呢？有时当一些政治哲学家对同意的看法与洛克非常相似时，都让人很难理解或至少不会觉得很有趣。

But there are some puzzles, some strange features of Locke's account of consent as the basis of legitimate government and that's what I'd like to take up today. One way of testing the plausibility of Locke's idea of consent and also of probing some of its perplexities is to ask just what a legitimate government founded on consent can do, what are its powers according to Locke.

洛克关于同意是合法政府建立基础的理论也有些令人困惑和奇怪的地方，而这正是我今天要讲的。一个检验洛克同意理论并查清其让人困惑之处的办法就是看根据洛克理论，基于同意而建立的合法政府能做什么，有何权力。

Well, in order to answer that question, it helps to remember what the state of nature is like. Remember, the state of nature is the condition that we decide to leave, and that's what gives rise to consent.

为了回答这个问题回顾一下自然状态会很有帮助。记住，自然状态是我们决定脱离的状态，正是因此产生了同意这一概念。

Why not stay there? Why bother with government at all? Well, what is Locke's answer to that question?

为什么不保持那个状态？为什么要建政府呢？洛克对此是怎么回答的呢？

He says there are some inconveniences in the state of nature but what are those inconveniences? The main inconvenience is that everyone can enforce the law of nature.

他说自然状态有一些不便之处，什么不便之处呢？主要的一点就是每个人都能行使自然法。

Everyone is an enforcer or what Locke calls "the executor"of the state of nature and he means executor literally. If someone violates the law of nature, he is an aggressor.

每个人都是执行者，或如洛克说的自然法的“执刑者”。这个"执刑者"可以字面上理解。如果某人触犯了自然法，他就是侵略者 。

He is beyond reason and you can punish him. And you don't have to be too careful or fine about gradations of punishment in the state of nature. You can kill him.

他就是失去了理智，你就可以惩罚他。而且在自然状态中，你不必对实施惩罚的程度太过小心。你可以杀了他，

You can certainly kill someone who comes after you, who tries to murder you. That's self defense.

你可以理所当然地杀死一个跟踪你、想谋害你的人。那是自卫。

But the enforcement power, the right to punish, everyone can do the punishing in the state of nature. And not only can you punish with death people who come after you seeking to take your life, you can also punish a thief who tries to steal your goods because that also counts as aggression against the law of nature.

而说到执行权、惩罚权，自然状态下人人都能实施惩罚权。不仅可以处死那些跟踪你想谋害你的人，还可以惩罚想偷你东西的小偷，因为那也算侵犯了自然法。

If someone has stolen from a third party, you can go after him. Why is this?

如果有人偷了第三方的东西，你也可以抓他。为什么？

Well, violations of the law of nature are an act of aggression. There is no police force. There are no judges, no juries, so everyone is the judge in his or her own case.

违反自然法是一种侵略行为。没有警察，没有法官，没有陪审团，所以每个人都是自己的法官。

And Locke observes that when people are the judges of their own cases, they tend to get carried away, and this gives rise to the inconvenience in the state of nature. People overshoot the mark. There is aggression.

而洛克发现当人们审理自己的案子时，他们往往会失去理智，这就引出了自然法的不便之处。有人行为过度了，就变成了侵略。

There is punishment and before you know it, everybody is insecure in the enjoyment of his or her unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. Now, he describes in pretty harsh and even grim terms what you can do to people who violate the law of nature.

就能惩罚他，不知不觉间所有人不可剥夺的生命、自由和财产权都没了保障。他用很强硬甚至可怕的字眼描述你可以怎样对待违反自然法的人。

"One may destroy a man who makes war upon him . . . for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion. Such men have no other rule, but that of force and violence,"

“一人可以摧毁向他挑起战争的人……正如他可以杀死一匹狼或一头狮子。这种人除强力和暴力的法则之外，没有其他法则。”

Listen to this, "and so may be treated as beasts of prey those dangerous and noxious creatures that will be sure to destroy you if you fall into their power", so kill them first. So, what starts out as a seemingly benign state of nature where everyone is free and yet where there is a law and the law respects people's rights, and those rights are so powerful that they're unalienable.

注意这里，“因此可以被当作猛兽，危险和有害的动物，如果落在它们的爪牙之内就一定会遭到毁灭”，所以先下手为强。乍一看自然状态是十分良善的，人人皆自由，但还有自然法，自然法尊重人们的权利，而这些权利是如此强大，它们是不可剥夺的。

What starts out looking very benign, once you look closer, is pretty fierce and filled with violence, and that's why people want to leave. How do they leave? Well, here is where consent comes in.

乍一看非常良善，一旦仔细看会发现它粗暴且充满暴力，而这就是人们想脱离的原因。怎么脱离呢？这时候同意就登场了。

The only way to escape from the state of nature is to undertake an act of consent where you agree to give up the enforcement power and to create a government or a community where there will be a legislature to make law and where everyone agrees in advance, agrees in advance to abide by whatever the majority decides. But then the question, and this is our question and here is where I want to get your views, then the question is what powers, what can the majority decide?

唯一脱离自然状态的办法就是采取“同意”这一行为，你同意放弃你的执行权，同意建立一个政府或一个共同体政府，或共同体中有立法机关制定法律，并且所有人都事先同意，任何加入的人事先都要同意遵从大多数人的决定。但问题出现了，这也是我的问题，我想听听大家对此的意，见问题是多数人到底有何权利，他们能决定什么？

Now, here, it gets tricky for Locke because you remember, alongside the whole story about consent and majority rule, there are these natural—natural rights, the law of nature, these unalienable rights, and you remember, they don't disappear when people join together to create a civil society. So even once the majority is in charge, the majority can't violate your inalienable rights, can't violate your fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.

这里洛克的说法就难懂了，大家一定都记得除了同意和多数人规则，还有这些自然权利、自然法这些不可剥夺的权利，这些不会在人们建立社会之后就消失了。所以即使多数人掌权，多数人也不能侵犯你不可剥夺的权利，不能侵犯你基本的生命、自由和财产权。

So here is the puzzle. How much power does the majority have?

所以问题是。多数人到底有多大权力呢？

How limited is the government created by consent? It's limited by the obligation on the part of the majority to respect and to enforce the fundamental natural rights of the citizens.

基于同意组成的政府又受多大限制呢？它受限于多数人，有义务尊重并维护公民的基本自然权利。

They don't give those up. We don't give those up when we enter government. That's this powerful idea taken over from Locke by Jefferson in the Declaration.

加入政府时，我们可并未放弃这些权利。这就是杰斐逊在《自由宣言》里所引用的洛克的一个强而有力的主张。

Unalienable rights. So, let's go to our two cases.

不可剥夺的权利。回想下之前的两个例子。

Remember Michael Jordan, Bill Gates, the libertarian objection to taxation for redistribution? Well, what about Locke's limited government? Is there anyone who thinks that Locke does give grounds for opposing taxation for redistribution?

迈克尔·乔丹、比尔·盖茨的例子中，自由主义反对通过征税进行财富再分配。那洛克的有限政府呢？有人认为洛克确实为反对通过征税进行财富再分配提供了理论基础吗？

Anybody? Go ahead. If you—if the majority rules that there should be taxation, even if the minority should still not have to be taxed because that's taking away property, which is one of the rights of nature.

有人吗？你来。即使多数人规定应当征税，少数人仍并不一定非要交税，因为那等于夺走少数人的财产，而财产权是自然权利之一。

All right so, and what's your name? - Ben. - Ben. So if the majority taxes the minority without the consent of the minority to that particular tax law, it does amount to a taking of their property without their consent and it would seem that Locke should object to that.

好的，你叫什么？- 本。- 本，所以如果多数人在少数人并未同意某特定税法时向他们征税，那就等同于未经同意拿走他们的财产，根据洛克的理论，似乎他会反对这一做法。

- You want some textual support for your view, for your reading of Locke, Ben? - Sure. All right. I brought some along just in case you raised it.

- 需要我举出他原文里的材料来支持你的观点，支持你对洛克的解读吗，本？- 当然。好吧，我准备了些材料以备你们提到这点。

If you have your texts, look at 138, passage 138. "The supreme power," By which Locke means the legislature, "Cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent.

如果你们手中有课本的话，请看第138节。“最高权力，”这里洛克指的是立法机关，“未经本人同意，不能拿走任何人财产的任何部分.

For the preservation of property being the end of government and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires that people should have property." That was the whole reason for entering society in the first place, to protect the right to property. And when Locke speaks about the right to property, he often uses that as a kind of global term for the whole category, the right to life, liberty, and property.

因为既然保护财产是政府的目的，也是人们加入社会的目的，这就必然假定而且要求人民应该享有财产权。"人们加入社会的初衷为了保护财产权。洛克所说的所有权通常概括了所有的自然权利，即生命、自由和财产权。

So that part of Locke, that beginning of 138, seems to support Ben's reading. But what about the part of 138, if you keep reading, "Men, therefore, in society having property, they have such a right to the goods, which by the law of the community are theirs."

洛克在138节开头说的这几句似乎支持了本的解读。但继续读下去，138节后面部分又如何呢，“因此，在社会中享有财产权的人们，对于那些根据社会的法律是属于他们的财产，就享有这样一种权利。"

Look at this. "And that no one can take from them without their consent." And then at the end of this passage, he says, "So it's a mistake to think that the legislative power can do what it will and dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily or take any part of them at pleasure."

注意这里，“即未经他们本人的同意，任何人无权夺去。”然后在这一节的最后，他说道，“所以以为任何国家的立法权能为所欲为，任意处分人民产业或掠夺任何财产，这是错误的想法。”

Here's what's elusive. On the one hand, he says the government can't take your property without your consent. He is clear about that.

这就是晦涩的地方。一方面，他说未经你同意，政府不能取走你的财产。他非常明确这点。

But then he goes on to say, and that's the natural right to property. But then, it seems that property, what counts as property is not natural but conventional defined by the government. "The goods of which by the law of the community are theirs."

但之后他又说财产权是自然权利。但然后，他的意思似乎是，财产权不是与生俱来而是约定俗成的，是由政府定义的。“根据社会的法律是属于他们的财产。”

And the plot thickens if you look ahead to Section 140. In 140, he says, "Governments can't be supported without great charge." Government is expensive, "and it's fit that everyone who enjoys his share of the protection should pay out of his estate."

而继续看到第140节时，情况就更复杂了。140节里说，“政府没有巨大的经费就不能维持。”维持政府是要花钱的，“凡享受保护的人，都应该从他的产业中支出他的一份来维持政府。”

And then here is the crucial line. "But still, it must be with his own consent, i. e. the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves, or through their representatives."

接下来这句是关键 。“但是这仍须得到他自己的同意，即得到大多数的同意，由他们自己或选出的代表所表示的大多数同意。”

So what is Locke actually saying? Property is natural in one sense but conventional in another.

洛克这里到底指的是什么呢？财产既是自然权利，但也有约定俗成的一面。

It's natural in the sense that we have a fundamental unalienable right that there be property, that the institution of property exist and be respected by the government. So an arbitrary taking of property would be a violation of the law of nature and would be illegitimate.

自然权利是说财产权是基本的、不可剥夺的，正因为它是这样的权利，所以有产权制度存在并被政府所尊重。所以任意掠夺他人财产就侵犯了自然法，就是非法的。

But it's a further question. Here is the conventional aspect of property, it's a further question what counts as property, how it's defined and what counts as taking property, and that's up to the government. So the consent, here, we're coming back to our question, what is the work of consent?

但财产还有约定俗成的一面，就引出了更进一步的问题，什么才算财产，财产如何定义，何种行为才算掠夺财产，这是由政府决定的。再回到关于同意的问题，同意的作用是什么？

What it takes for taxation to be legitimate is that it be by consent, not the consent of Bill Gates himself if he is the one who has to pay the tax, but by the consent that he and we, all of us within the society gave when we emerged from the state of nature and created the government in the first place. It's the collective consent.

征税想要合法化的必要条件就是要经过同意，不是经过比尔·盖茨本人同意，如果他不得不交税的话，而是要经过他和我们社会中的每个人在我们当初脱离自然状态并组建政府的时候就同意。是集体性的同意。

And by that reading, it looks like consent is doing a whole lot and the limited government consent creates isn't all that limited. Does anyone want to respond to that or have a question about that?

这样解读的话，似乎同意的作用意味深远，而经同意建立的有限政府也并不那么有限。有没有人想回应或质疑这个问题？

Go ahead. Stand up. Well, I'm just wondering what Locke's view is on once you have a government that's already in place, whether it is possible for people who are born into that government to then leave and return to the state of nature?

你来，站起来说。我只想知道洛克对此会怎么想，一旦政府已经成立了，其中出生的人们是否有可能脱离它而重新回到自然状态呢？

I mean, I don't think that Locke mentioned that at all in the. . . What do you think?

我觉得洛克在书中并没提及这点……你是怎么想的？

Well, I think, as the convention, it would be very difficult to leave the government because you are no longer—because nobody else is just living in the state of nature. Everybody else is now governed by this legislature. What would it mean today, you're asking.

我认为按照惯例来说，想要脱离政府会是十分困难的，因为没有其他人生活在自然状态下。其他每个人都受立法机关管辖着。你是在问，现在脱离政府意味着什么。

- And what's your name? - Nicola. Nicola. To live the—supposed you wanted to leave civil society today. You want to withdraw your consent and return to the state of nature.

- 你的名字是？- 妮可拉。妮可拉，假设你现在想脱离文明社会，想收回你的同意转而回到自然状态。

- Well, because you didn't actually consent to it. You were just born into it. It was your ancestors who joined. - Okay. Right. You didn't sign the social contract. I didn't sign it.

- 因为谁都没有真正同意过啊。你只是出生于这个社会。那是你的先人同意的。- 好的。对，你并没有签社会契约，我也没有。

- Exactly. - All right, so what does Locke say there? Yes? I don't think Locke says you have to sign anything. I think that he says that it's kind of implied consent.

- 正是如此。- 那么洛克对此是怎么说的？你来说？洛克并没有说过你需要签署什么。他说的是，这是某种默认的同意。

- Implied? - By agreeing and taking government's services, you are implying that you are consenting to the government taking things from you. All right, so implied consent. That's a partial answer to this challenge.

- 默认的？- 同意并享受政府的福利，就意味着默认同意政府可以从你那拿去东西。好，默认的同意。部分解答了这个问题 。

Now, you may not think that implied consent is as good as the real thing. Is that what you're shaking your head about, Nicola?

不过你可能认为默认的同意不如白纸黑字的协议。这就是你摇头的原因吗？妮可拉。

Speak up. Stand up and speak up. I don't think that necessarily just by utilizing, you know, government's various resources that we are necessarily implying that we agree with the way that this government was formed or that we have consented to actually join into the social contract.

说吧，起来说。我不认为仅仅因为享用了政府的某些资源就必然意味着默认我们赞同政府的组建方式，或我们已经同意真正加入社会契约。

So you don't think the idea of implied consent is strong enough to generate any obligation at all to obey the government? Not necessarily, no.

就是说你认为默认同意的观点并没有强到足以让人有服从政府的义务？对，不是必然的。

Nicola, if you didn't think you'd get caught, would you pay your taxes? - I don't think so. I would rather have a system, personally, that I could give money to exactly those sections of the government I support and not just blanket support of it. - You'd rather be in the state of nature, at least on April 15th. - Exactly.

妮可拉，假如不会被抓，你还会缴税吗？- 应该不会，我个人更希望有个机制让我能把钱给那些我所支持的个别部门，而不是给所有政府部门。- 所以至少在四月十五日，你宁愿处于自然状态。（四月十五日:美国税务申报日） - 没错。

But what I'm trying to get at is do you consider that you are under no obligation, since you haven't actually entered into any act of consent, but for prudential reasons, you do what you're supposed to do according to the law? Exactly.

但我想知道的是，你认为自己不负有任何义务，因为你并未真正作出任何形式的同意，只是出于谨慎考虑，你还是会依法缴税，是吗？没错。

If you look at it that way, then you're violating another one of Locke's treatises, which is that you can't take anything from anyone else. Like, you can't—you can't take the government's services and then not give them anything in return.

如果你这么想的话，你就违反了洛克的另一个论点，就是你不能拿走他人的财产。比如，你不能享受了政府的服务却不给任何回报。

- If you—if you want to go live in the state of nature, that's fine, but you can't take anything from the government because by the government's terms, which are the only terms under which you can enter the agreement, say that you have to pay taxes to take those things. - So you are saying that Nicola can go back into the state of nature if she wants to but she can't drive on Mass. Ave. ? - Exactly. I want to—I want to raise the stakes beyond using the—beyond using Mass. Ave. and even beyond taxation.

- 如果你想生活在自然状态下，没问题，但你就不能享受任何政府福利了，因为根据政府组建条款，也是我们同意组建政府的唯一条款规定，只有你缴税了才能享受那些福利。- 你是说只要妮可拉愿意，她可以回到自然状态，但她从此不能在麻省的路上开车了？- 是的。如果其中的利害关系超越使用麻省的路。甚至超越税收制度呢。

What about life? What about military conscription? Yes, what do you say? Stand up.

譬如生命，譬如征兵制，那又如何？好的，你怎么想？起来说。

First of all, we have to remember that sending people to war is not necessarily implying that they'll die. I mean, obviously, you're not raising their chances here but it's not a death penalty.

首先，我们要明确把人们送去参战并不一定代表他们会死。显然，这不会提高他们的生存几率，但也不是判了死刑。

So if you're going to discuss whether or not military conscription is equivalent to suppressing people's right to life, you shouldn't approach it that way. Secondly, the real problem here is Locke has this view about consent and natural rights.

所以如果你要讨论征兵制度是否等价于压制人们的生命权，你不该这么说。其次，真正的问题是，洛克对同意和自然权利有这样的看法。

But you're not allowed to give up your natural rights either. So the real question is, you know, how does he himself figure it out between "I agree to give up my life, give up my property" when he talks about taxes or military conscription for the fact.

认为连你自己都不能放弃你的自然权利。所以真正的问题是，他如何能自圆其说以下观点，“我同意放弃我的生命，放弃我的财产。”当他谈到税收制或征兵制时是这样说的。

- But I guess Locke would be against suicide, and that's still, you know, my own consent. I agree by taking my life. - All right, good. All right, what's your name? - Eric. So Eric brings us back to the puzzle we've been wrestling with since we started reading Locke. On the one hand, we have these unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, which means that even we don't have the power to give them up, and that's what creates the limits on legitimate government. It's not what we consent to that limits government.

- 但我估计洛克会反对自杀，其实自杀同样是出于自己意愿，我同意放弃自己生命。- 好，说得不错，你叫什么？- 埃里克。埃里克把我们带回了最初解读洛克理论时所困扰的问题。一方面，我们有不可剥夺的生命、自由和财产权，这意味着甚至我们自己也无权放弃，正是这些权利造成了对合法政府的限制。并不是我们所同意的限制了政府。

It's what we lack the power to give away when we consent that limits government. That's the—that's the point at the heart of Locke's whole account of legitimate government.

而是我们在同意的时候无权放弃自然权利，从而限制了政府。这就是洛克对于合法政府观点的核心部分。

But now, you say, "Well, if we can't give up our own life, if we can't commit suicide, if we can't give up our right to property, how can we then agree to be bound by a majority that will force us to sacrifice our lives or give up our property"? Does Locke have a way out of this or is he basically sanctioning an all-powerful government, despite everything he says about unalienable rights?

但现在，你说，“假如我们不能放弃自己的生命，不能自杀、不能放弃自己的财产权，我们又如何能接受多数人的制约，被迫牺牲我们的生命或放弃我们的财产呢？”洛克对此能自圆其说吗？还是说他其实是支持万能政府的呢？尽管他说了那么多什么不可剥夺的权利。

Does he have a way out of it? Who would speak here in defense of Locke or make sense, find a way out of this predicament? All right, go ahead.

他能自圆其说吗？谁愿意为洛克辩护或帮他摆脱这个困境？好的，你来。

I feel like there is a general distinction we made between the right to life that individuals possess and the—and the fact that the government cannot take away a single individual's right to life. I think if you look at conscription as the government picking out certain individuals to go fight in war, then that would be a violation of their rights—their natural right to life.

我觉得这两者之间有明显的区别就是，个人所拥有的生命权以及政府不能夺走个人生命权的事实。如果你把征兵制视为政府挑选特定的个人去参战，那确实是对自然权利中生命权的侵犯 。

On the other hand, if you have conscription, let's say a lottery for example, then in that case I would view that as the population picking their representatives to defend them in the case of war, the idea being that since the whole population cannot go out there to defend its own right to property, it picks its own representatives through a process that's essentially random and then these—these sort of elected representatives go out and fight for the rights of the people. It works very similar, it works just like an elected government, in my opinion.

另一方面，如果征兵制中，比如通过抽签这种情况下，我会视之为大众在挑选他们的代表在有战事时保卫大众，这是基于既然不可能所有人都冲上战场去保卫他们自己的财产权，所以通过一套随机的程序选出自己的代表，然后由这些随机选出的代表上战场去为大众的利益而战。在我看来，这就类似于民选政府。

All right, so an elected government can conscript citizens to go out and defend the way of life, the community that makes the enjoyment of rights possible? I think—I think it can because to me, it seems that it's very similar to the process of electing representatives for legislature.

好的，所以说民选政府是可以征召公民上战场为了他们的生活而战的，使得社会能够继续享有这些权利吗？我认为是可以的，因为我觉得这非常类似于选举立法代表的过程。

Although here, it's as if the government is electing by conscription certain citizens to go die for the sake of the whole. Is that consistent with respect for a natural right to liberty?

尽管目前，好像是政府在通过征兵制选择特定的公民为了全体利益而死 。这符合尊重自由权这一自然权利的精神？

- Well, what I would say there is there is a distinction between picking out individuals and having a random choice of individuals. Like. . . - Between picking out. . . Let me make sure, between picking out individuals, let me. . . What's your name? Gokul.

- 我要说的是，选出特定的一些个体和随机选出一些个体是有区别的，比如……- 让我确认一下，挑选特定的个体……你叫什么名字？戈古尔。

Gokul says there's a difference between picking out individuals to lay down their lives and having a general law. I think this is—I think this is the answer Locke would give, actually, Gokul.

戈古尔说挑选特定个体去牺牲和依照通用法律挑选是不同的。我认为洛克也会这么回答，戈古尔。

Locke is against arbitrary government. He is against the arbitrary taking, the singling out of Bill Gates to finance the war in Iraq. He is against singling out a particular citizen or group of people to go off and fight.

洛克是反对专制政府的。他反对肆意掠夺反对特地挑选比尔·盖茨为伊拉克战争出资。他反对特定挑选某个公民或某个群体去参加战斗。

But if there is a general law such that the government's choice, the majority's action is non-arbitrary, it doesn't really amount to a violation of people's basic rights. What does count as a violation is an arbitrary taking because that would essentially say, not only to Bill Gates, but to everyone, there is no rule of law. There is no institution of property.

但假如通过通用法律来规定，那么政府的选择多数人的行为就不再是专制的，就不算侵犯人们的基本权利。只有肆意掠夺才算侵犯自然权利，因为从本质上说，那不仅侵犯了比尔·盖茨，还侵犯了其他人，那样就毫无法治可言。毫无产权制度可言。

Because at the whim of the king, or for that matter, of the parliament, we can name you or you to give up your property or to give up your life. But so long as there is a non-arbitrary rule of law, then it's permissible.

因为在这种情况下，国王就可以随心所欲，国会可以随心所欲让你们中的任何人放弃财产或放弃生命 。但只要有一部非专制的法律，那这就是允许的。

Now, you may say this doesn't amount to a very limited government, and the libertarian may complain Locke is not such a terrific ally after all. The libertarian has two grounds for disappointment in Locke.

现在或许你会说，这并不算真正有限的政府，而自由主义者会抱怨洛克并不算他们的好盟友。自由主义者对洛克的失望在于两点。

First, that the rights are unalienable and therefore, I don't really own myself after all. I can't dispose of my life or my liberty or my property in a way that violates my rights.

首先，有些权力是不可剥夺的，所以我并非真正地拥有自己。我不能放弃自己的生命或自由或财产，因为某种程度上说，这侵犯了我的权利。

That's disappointment number one. Disappointment number two, once there is a legitimate government based on consent, the only limits for Locke are limits on arbitrary takings of life or of liberty or of property.

这是他们失望的第一点。失望的第二点，一旦经过同意建立合法政府后，对洛克来说它唯一的限制就是不能肆意夺取生命或自由或财产。

But if the majority decides, if the majority promulgates a generally applicable law and if it votes duly according to fair procedures, then there is no violation, whether it's a system of taxation or a system of conscription. So it's clear that Locke is worried about the absolute arbitrary power of kings, but it's also true, and here is the darker side of Locke, that this great theorist of consent came up with a theory of private property that didn't require consent that may. . . And this goes back to the point Rochelle made last time, may have had something to do with Locke's second concern, which was America.

但如经多数人决定，如果多数人颁布一部普遍适用的法律并经公平程序投票决定，那就不算侵权，不管是征税还是征兵。所以很明显，洛克是在担心国王绝对专权，但同时洛克也确实有黑暗的一面，这位同意观点上的伟大理论家提出理论却是私有财产的取得并不需要获得同意，这也许……这又回到了上次罗谢尔的观点，这也许跟洛克关心的第二件事有关，即为殖民美洲作辩护。

You remember, when he talks about the state of nature, he is not talking about an imaginary place. "In the beginning," He says, "All the world was America."

你们应该记得，他所谈到的自然状态并不是某个假想的地方 。“初期”，他说， “全世界都像美洲。”

And what was going on in America? The settlers were enclosing land and engaged in wars with the Native Americans.

而美洲又在发生什么呢？殖民者在圈地，并挑起了与印第安人的战争。

Locke, who was an administrator of one of the colonies, may have been as interested in providing a justification for private property through enclosure without consent through enclosure and cultivation, as he was with developing a theory of government based on consent that would rein in kings and arbitrary rulers. The question we're left with, the fundamental question we still haven't answered is what then becomes of consent?

洛克这位昔日的殖民事务大臣可能乐于正义化当时的土地私有化举动，即只要圈地并耕种该土地，不需同意就能拥有它，同时他也在完善一个理论，基于同意建立的政府能限制国王和专制统治者。剩下的就是最基本的问题，我们仍未解答究竟同意是什么？

What work can it do? What is its moral force? What are the limits of consent?

同意有何用？同意有何道德上的力量？同意又有何限制？

Consent matters not only for governments, but also for markets. And beginning next time, we're going to take up questions of the limits of consent in the buying and selling of goods.

同意不只对政府很重要，对市场也是。下节课开始，我们将解答买卖商品中同意的限制问题。

,