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 Harris
Alex 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 libertarian
Julie, 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？John
All right, and you're? John.
John。好的，John
John. 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
