立法来要求我们系上安全带
us, to wear seatbelts by law.
这是一种胁迫。所以，第一条：废除家长式立法
It's coercion, so no paternalist legislation, number one.
第二：废除道德立法。
Number two, no morals legislation.
许多法律试图鼓励公民培养某些道德
Many laws try to promote the virtue of citizens
或体现整体社会的道德价值观
or try to give expression to the moral values of the society as a whole.
自由主义说，这也是侵犯自由权的。
Libertarian say that's also a violation of the right to liberty.
一个典型的例子
Take the example of, well, a classic example
以促进道德的名义来立法
of legislation authored in the name of promoting morality
传统上法律禁止
traditionally have been laws that prevent sexual intimacy
同性恋的关系。
between gays and lesbians.
自由主义说，同性恋并没有伤害到任何人
The libertarian says nobody else is harmed,
没有侵犯到任何人的权利
nobody else's rights are violated,
因此，国家无权
so the state should get out of the business entirely of
促进美德或通过道德立法。
trying to promote virtue or to enact morals legislation.
而自由主义要废除的第三种法律、政策
And the third kind of law or policy that is ruled out
是税收等政策
on the libertarian philosophy is any taxation or other policy
以达到收入的再分配的目的
that serves the purpose of redistributing income or wealth
从富人流到穷人。
from the rich to the poor.
如果你仔细想想，再分配是
Redistribution is a – if you think about it,
是一种胁迫，自由主义说
says the libertarian is a kind of coercion.
这就像是国家或多数派在偷窃
What it amounts to is theft by the state or by the majority,
从那些干得好、钱赚得多一点的人身上
if we're talking about a democracy, from people who happen to
偷窃
do very well and earn a lot of money.
Nozick和其他自由主义者允许
Now, Nozick and other libertarians allow that there can be
国家收取少额的税收，来支持那些公众都需要的东西
a minimal state that taxes people for the sake of what everybody needs,
例如，国防，警察部队，
the national defense, police force,
司法系统
judicial system to enforce contracts and property rights,
但仅此而已。
but that's it.
现在，我希望听听你们怎么看
Now, I want to get your reactions to this third feature
自由主义的第三个观点
of the libertarian view.
我想看看，谁同意这个想法，谁不同意，为什么不同意
I want to see who among you agree with that idea and who disagree and why.
但是，为了让大家具体地看看利害攸关点
But just to make it concrete and to see what's at stake,
我们可以考虑一下，美国的财富分配
consider the distribution of wealth in the United States.
在所有先进的民主国家之中，美国是目前
United States is among the most inegalitarian society as far as
贫富最不平等的社会
the distribution of wealth of all the advanced democracies.
这是正义的还是不正义的呢？
Now, is this just or unjust?
那么，自由主义又是怎样说的？
Well, what does the libertarian say?
自由主义说，光从我给你的事实中你很难知道
Libertarian says you can't know just from the facts I've just given you.
你不知道分配是否是公正的
You can't know whether that distribution is just or unjust.
光看分配，光看结果
You can't know just by looking at a pattern or a distribution or
你很难知道它是否公正。
result whether it's just or unjust.
你必须知道它是怎么来的。
You have to know how it came to be.
你不能只看最后的阶段，最后的结果。
You can't just look at the end stage or the result.
你要看两个原则
You have to look at two principles.
第一：要看它一开始有什么，是怎么获得
The first he calls justice in acquisition or in initial holdings.
也就是说，他们是公平地获得
And what that means simply is did people get the things they used
他们所拥有的吗？
to make their money fairly?
所以，我们需要知道它们一开始是否是公正的
So we need to know was there justice in the initial holdings?
是不是他们偷了一块地，或偷窃工厂或货物
Did they steal the land or the factory or the goods
才使他们得到这笔钱？
that enabled them to make all that money?
如果没有，如果他们有权
If not, if they were entitled to whatever it was
做一切可以让他们富裕起来的事
that enabled them to gather the wealth,
第一个原则：公平竞争
the first principle is matched.
第二个原则：这种收入分配是否源自
The second principle is did the distribution arise from
经过大家同意、自愿的
the operation of free consent, people buying and trading
自由买卖？
on the market?
正如你所看到的，自由主义的思想对应于
As you can see, the libertarian idea of justice corresponds to
一个公正自由市场来提供人们所需
a free market conception of justice provided people got what they used
公平的，而不是偷来的
fairly, didn't steal it, and provided the distribution results
人们自由地买卖，导致了这种收入分配
from the free choice of individual's buying and selling things,
那么，分配是公正的。
the distribution is just.
如果没有，这是不公正的。
And if not, it's unjust.
为了解决这次讨论的问题，
So let's, in order to fix ideas for this discussion,
我们举一个实际的例子。
take an actual example.
谁是美国最富有的人？
Who's the wealthiest person in the United States
全世界最富有的人？比尔盖茨。
wealthiest person in the world? Bill Gates.
是的。很正确
It is. That's right. Here he is.
你会感到高兴。
You'd be happy, too.
他的净资产是多少？有没有人知道？
Now, what's his net worth? Anybody have any idea?
这是一个很大的数字
That's a big number.
克林顿执政时期，还记得有一个颇受争议的捐助者吗？
During the Clinton years, remember there was a controversy donors?
他们邀请竞选的赞助商们
Big campaign contributors were invited to stay overnight
在白宫里的林肯卧室过夜？
in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House?
如果你捐了25000美元或以上的话
I think if you've contributed twenty five thousand dollars or above,
有人计算出，这些被邀请在林肯卧室睡一晚的赞助商们
someone figured out at the median contribution that got you invited
捐献数额的中位数
to stay a night in the Lincoln bedroom,
比尔盖茨的财富足以让他
Bill Gates could afford to stay in the Lincoln bedroom every night
在林肯卧室里睡66,000年。
for the next sixty six thousand years.
也有人计算过，他的时薪
Somebody else figured out, how much does he get paid on an hourly basis?
于是他们想，自从他创立了微软，
And so they figured out, since he began Microsoft,
假设他每天工作14小时，这算是合理的猜测
I suppose he worked, what 14 hours per day, reasonable guess,
然后用他的净财富除以他的工作时间
and you calculate this net wealth, it turns out that his rate of pay
计算的结果是超过150美元，不是时薪，也不是“分薪”
is over 150 dollars, not per hour, not per minute
而是秒薪超过150美元
150 dollars, more than 150 dollars per second
这意味着，如果他去办公室的途中
which means that if on his way to the office,
发现了街上有一张100美元的钞票，
Gates noticed a hundred dollar bill on the street,
也不值得他停下捡起来。
it wouldn't be worth his time to stop and pick it up.
你们大多人会，像这么富有的人，我们当然可以要他交税
Now, most of you will say someone that wealthy surely we can tax them
来养活那些没饭吃，没房子住，没书读
to meet the pressing needs of people who lack in education or lack enough
那些有迫切需要的人
to eat or lack decent housing.
他们比 比尔盖茨更需要这些
They need it more than he does.
如果你是一个功利主义者，你会怎么做？
And if you were a utilitarian, what would you do?
你会采取什么税收政策？
What tax policy would you have?
你很快就重新分配了，不是吗？
You'd redistribute in a flash, wouldn't you?
因为你知道，一个优秀的功利主义者
Because you would know being a good utilitarian that taking some,
只需要一个小数目，小到你几乎忽略了它
a small amount, he'd scarcely going to notice it,
但它能给那些在底层生活的人们
but it will make a huge improvement in the lives and in the welfare
带来极大的改善
of those at the bottom.
但自由主义理论认为，我们不能只是简单地
But remember, the libertarian theory says we can't just add up an
把所有人的偏好叠加起来
aggregate preferences and satisfactions that way.
我们还要尊重个人，如果他公平地赚钱
We have to respect persons and if he earned that money fairly without
不侵犯其他人的权利，根据自由主义的这两条原则，
violating anybody else's rights in accordance with the two principles
公平的获取和交换财富
of justice in acquisition and in justice in transfer,
强制性地收税是错误的，这一种胁迫，
then it would be wrong, it would be a form of coercion to take it away
迈克尔乔丹虽然没有比尔盖茨富有
Michael Jordan is not as wealthy as Bill Gates but he did
但他也过得相当不错
pretty well for himself.
你想看看迈克尔乔丹。在那里
You wanna see Michael Jordan. There he is.
他的年收入是3.1千万美元
His income alone in one year was 31 million dollars and then
为耐克和其他公司代言，
he made another 47 million dollars in endorsements for a Nike
他每年赚4.7千万美元
and other companies.
因此，加起来，他的年薪7.8千万美元。
So his income was, in one year, $78 million.
比方说，他收入的三分之一要用来交税
To require him to pay, let's say, a third of his earnings to
来支持诸如食品、保健、住房、穷人的教育
the government to support good causes like food and health care and
这是胁迫，这是不公正的。
housing and education for the poor, that's coercion, that's unjust.
这侵犯了他的权利。
That violates his rights.
这就是为什么收入再分配是错误的。
And that's why redistribution is wrong.
现在，有多少人赞同自由主义的这种观点
Now, how many agree with that argument, agree with the libertarian argument
认为为了帮助穷人而再分配是错的？
that redistribution for the sake of trying to help the poor is wrong?
有多少人不同意这种观点？
And how many disagree with that argument?
好吧，让我们先听听那些不同意的
All right, let's begin with those who disagree.
自由主义反对再分配，有什么地方不正确？
What's wrong with the libertarian case against redistribution?
是。
Yes.
我认为，像迈克尔乔丹，这些人已获得了
I think these people like Michael Jordan have received
我们在谈论，在一个社会里工作
we're talking about working within a society and they receive
他们已经从社会中获得更多，他们有更大的责任
a larger gift from the society and they have a larger obligation
来回报社会，通过再分配
in return to give that through redistribution, you know,
你或许说，迈克尔乔丹和其他人一样努力地工作
you can say that Michael Jordan may work just as hard as some who works,
那些洗衣服的人也每天工作12、14个小时，但乔丹却得到更多
you know, doing laundry 12 hours, 14 hours a day, but he's receiving more.
我不认为这是公平的。这原本就对乔丹有利
I don't think it's fair to say that, you know, it's all on him,
他固有的（天赋），和勤奋。
on his, you know, inherent, you know, hard work.
好吧，让我们听听支持自由主义的声音
All right, let's hear from defenders of libertarianism.
为什么在原则上，从富人身上征税来帮助穷人是错误的？
Why would it be wrong in principle to tax the rich to help the poor?
请继续。
Go ahead.
