在自己家里进行你的信仰。或者像我进行我信仰
on your own in your own home or like me practicing my religion
但不会影响旁边的人
is not going to affect the next person.
但如果我是穷人，我十分绝望，
But if I'm poor and I'm desperate,
我可能会犯罪来养活我的家人，这就会影响其他人
like I might commit a crime to feed my family and that can affect others.
好，谢谢你。
Okay, good, thank you.
偷面包错误来养活自己挨饿的家
Would it be wrong for someone to steal a loaf of bread
是错误的？是吗？
to feed his starving family? Is that wrong?
我认为是。这是 -
I believe that it is. This is --
让我们对你们三个人做个简单的调查
Let's take a quick poll of the three of you.
你觉得是，这是错误的。对。
You say, yes, it is wrong. Yes.
John呢？
John?
它违反了财产权。是错误的。
It violates property rights. It's wrong.
哪怕是为了养活家庭？
Even to save a starving family?
我的意思，养活家有其他办法
I mean there are definitely other ways around that
但如果认为可以偷面包，就不行。等一下
and by justifying, no, hang on, hang on,
你在笑
before you laugh at me.
在为盗窃行为辩护前
Before justifying the act of stealing,
你必须想到，我们已经认可的那些权利
you have to look at violating the right that we've already agreed exists,
自我占有和支配权，我的意思，
the right of self possession and the possession of, I mean,
自己的东西。
your own things.
我们同意有产权。
We agree on property rights.
好的，我们都觉得是偷窃。
All right, we agree at stealing.
是的，我们觉得是偷窃。
Yeah, we agree at stealing.
所以，这和产权无关
So property rights is not the issue.
好的，但 -
All right, but --
为什么这是错的呢，为了养活你挨饿的家？
So why is it wrong to steal even to feed your starving family?
和我在一开始问过的问题
Sort of the original argument that I made in the very first
有点类似
question you asked.
行为的后果并不能为行为本身辩护
The benefits of an action don't justify, don't make the action just.
Julia，你刚在是说？
Do what, what would you say, Julia?
为了养家，偷了面包是对的吗
Is it all right to steal a loaf of bread to feed a
为了救活你的孩子去偷药？
starving family or to steal a drug that your child needs to survive?
我想，老实话，我不反对这样做
I think, I'm okay with that, honestly.
即使从自由主义的观点来看，
Even from the libertarian standpoint,
我想，如果说你可以
I think that, okay, saying that you can just take money
从那些富人身上任意拿钱
arbitrarily from people who have a lot to go to this pool
去帮助这些有需要的人，但
of people who need it, but you have an individual
这些需要别人帮助的人，他们有义务自己救活自己
who's acting on their own behalf to kind of save themselves and then
我想，像你提到的，像自我支配这个观念
I think you said they, for any idea like self possession,
穷人也有权自己保护自己，自己养活自己
they are also in charge of protecting themselves and keeping themselves
因此，即使是站在自由主义的立场
alive so, therefore, even for a libertarian standpoint,
偷窃可能也是对的
that might be okay.
好的，这很好，这很好。
All right, that's good, that's good.
那么，对于反对意见三呢？
All right, what about number three up here?
是不是有这样一种情况
Isn't it the case that the successful,
那些成功人、有钱人，他们有责任
the wealthy, owe a debt.
他们能有今天，不是完全靠自己。
They didn't do that all by themselves.
他们得和其他人合作，他们对社会有亏欠
They had to cooperate with other people that they owe a debt
而这种亏欠，用税收的形式来还
to society and that that's expressed in taxation.
Julia，你想继续说吗？
You wanna take that on, Julia?
这一次，我觉得，从他们如何致富的这个意义上说
Okay, this one, I believe that there is not a debt to society
这些人并没有亏欠社会什么
in the sense that how did these people become wealthy?
他们做了一些社会肯定的事
They did something that society valued highly.
社会就给予和供应他们
I think that society has already been giving, been providing for them
如果真有的话，我认为这些都被可以抵消
if anything, I think it's… everything is cancelled out.
他们为社会作出一点贡献，社会也回应他们
They provided a service to society and society responded by somehow
他们获得了自己的财富
they got their wealth, so I think that --
说具体一点
So be concrete.
像迈克尔乔丹
In the case of Michael Jordan, some…
来说明你的观点。
I mean, to illustrate your point.
有一批人在帮助他赚钱，他的队友
There were people who helped him make the money, the teammates,
那位教会他打球的教练
the coach, people who taught him how to play.
但是，我们都付了钱给他们，他们都得到了报偿
But they've, you're saying, but they've all been paid for their services.
没错，大家也从观看乔丹打球当中
Exactly, and society derived a lot of benefit and pleasure from watching
得到很多欢乐
Michael Jordan play.
我认为，这就是他给社会的回报
I think that that's how he paid his debt to society.
好，好。
All right, good.
有谁想继续说下去？是的
Who would, anyone likes to take up that point? Yes.
我认为，我们的一个假设有问题
I think that there's a problem here with that we're assuming
我们假设，当生活在一个社会里，我们能自我支配
that a person has self possession when they live in a society.
我觉得，当你在这个社会里生活，你不得不放弃这项权利
I feel like when you live in a society, you give up that right.
我的意思是，从法律上说，如果有人得罪了我
I mean, technically, if I want to personally go out and kill someone
因为我有权自我支配，所以我想把这个人给杀了
because they offend me, that is self possession.
但因为我生活在一个社会里，我不能这样做。
Because I live in a society I cannot do that.
我认为这相当于说，因为我有更多的钱
I think it's kind of equivalent to say because I have more money,
我有资源来帮助其他人
I have resources that can save people's lives,
政府是不是就可以从我身上拿钱呢？
is it not okay for the government to take that from me?
因为我生活在一个社会里，只能在一定程度上自我支配
Self possession only to a certain extent because I'm living in a society
我必须考虑到周围的人
where I have to take account of the people around me.
你叫什么名字？
So are you question, what's your name?
维多利亚。
Victoria.
维多利亚，你是在质疑自我支配这个基本前提？
Victoria, are you questioning the fundamental premise of self possession?
是。
Yes.
我认为，你并没有真正的自我支配
I think that you don't really have self possession
如果你选择了在这个社会里生活，因为你不能忽略
if you choose to live in a society because you cannot just discount
你周围的人
the people around you.
好吧，我想让这些自由主义者们，对最后一点
All right, I want to quickly get the response of the libertarian
做个简短的回应
team to the last point.
最后一点，也许像维多利亚州说的
The last point builds on, well, maybe it builds on Victoria's
我们并没有支配和拥有自己，因为
suggestion that we don't own ourselves because it says that Bill Gates
比尔盖茨 、乔丹都很富有
is wealthy, that Michael Jordan makes a huge income,
但这并不完全靠他们一个人的努力
isn't wholly their own doing.
这还靠运气，所以我们不能说
It's the product of a lot of luck and so we can't claim that they
在道义上，并不是所有钱都是他们应得的
morally deserve all the money they make.
谁想回应这点？Alex？
Who wants to reply to that? Alex?
你当然证明说...
You certainly could make the case that it is not…
他们的富有不适用于他们是否心地善良，
their wealth is not appropriate to the goodness in their hearts,
这并不是一个和道德有关的问题
but that's not really the morally relevant issue.
这里的论点在于，他们是通过自由交换的过程
The point is that they have received what they have through
人们自愿地和他们交换
the free exchange of people who have given them their holdings,
通常是为了换取一些服务
usually in exchange for providing some other service
很好
Good enough.
我尝试总结一下，从这次讨论中学到的
I want to try to sum up what we've learned from this discussion,
首先，让我们感谢John，Alex和Julia的出色表现
but, first, let's thank John, Alex, and Julia for a really wonderful job.
在讨论快结束的时候，维多利亚
Toward the end of the discussion just now Victoria challenged
质疑自由主义推理的一个前提
the premise of this line of reasoning that's libertarian logic.
她指出，也许我们并不能支配自己
Maybe, she suggested, we don't own ourselves after all.
如果你不赞同，自由主义者反对再分配的观点
If you reject the libertarian case against redistribution,
似乎我们能打破自由主义的逻辑
there would seem to be an incentive to break in to the libertarian line
在最一开始，在最温和的层次上
of reasoning at the earliest, at the most modest level,
这就是为什么很多人争议
which is why a lot of people disputed that taxation
认为税收在道义上等同于强迫劳动。
is morally equivalent to forced labor.
但对于自由主义的大前提
But what about the big claim, the premise, the big idea
和基本观点呢？
underlying the libertarian argument?
我们是否真的能支配自己，还是我们可以推翻这个想法
Is it true that we own ourselves or can we do without that idea
而且仍然能像自由主义者们所要的那样
and still avoid what libertarians want to avoid creating a society
反对建立一个所谓的“正义”社会，为了一部分人的利益
in an account of justice where some people can be just used
就可以从另外一部分人拿钱
for the sake of other people's welfare or even for the sake of the general good?
自由主义批判功利主义把个人当作
Libertarians combat the utilitarian idea of using people as means
谋取大众利益的工具
for the collective happiness by saying the way to put a stop
他们评判的理由是
to that utilitarian logic of using persons is to resort to
一个听起来很有说服力的想法：
the intuitively powerful idea that we are the proprietors
我们是自己的主人
of our own person.
这是Alex、Julia、John、Robert Nozick这一派的观点
That's Alex and Julia and John and Robert Nozick.
如果我们质疑我们是否能自我支配
What are the consequences for a theory of justice and
那我们需要一个怎么样的关于正义的理论？
in account of rights of calling into question the idea of self possession?
难道我们又回到功利主义
Does it mean that we're back to utilitarianism and using people
把所有人的利益加起来，最后决定把那个胖子推下桥？（第一集）
and aggregating preferences and pushing the fat man off the bridge?
并非是Nozick本人发展出自我支配这个概念
Nozick doesn't himself fully develop the idea of self possession.
他借用了早期的哲学家洛克
He borrows it from an earlier philosopher, John Locke.
当自然物（例如风、花草）最后变为私人财产
John Locke accounted for the rise of private property from the state of nature
洛克解释这一现象所用的逻辑，跟Nozick
by a chain of reasoning very similar to the one that Nozick
和其他自由主义者用的类似
and the libertarians use.
