如果那个论据是正确的，这就会正义化
that argument, if it's valid, would justify the settlers' appropriating
移民者们占据土地的行为
that land and excluding others from it,
你认为这论据是一个很好的论据么？
you think that argument is a good argument?
恩，这不就是在暗示
Well, doesn't it kind of imply that the Native Americans
印第安人自己没有这样做过？
hadn't already done that?
恩，印第安人仅仅狩猎、采集
Well, the Native Americans, as hunter-gatherers,
他们并没有实际上占领土地
didn't actually enclose land.
因此，我认为Rochelle想说的是这个
So I think Rochelle is onto something there.
- 我想……- 继续讲， Dan
What I want to -- go ahead, Dan.
同时，他也说过，只要在某块的土地上
At the same time, he is saying that just by picking
捡捡橡树果实、摘摘苹果，或者杀一头水牛
an acorn or taking an apple or maybe killing a buffalo
这块土地就归你所有
on a certain amount of land, that makes it yours
因为这有你的劳动，而你的劳动为你圈取了这片土地
because it's your labor and your labor would enclose that land.
因此，根据洛克的定义， 也许印第安人没有绕着这块地
So by that definition, maybe they didn't have fences
竖起围栏，但不……
around little plots of land but didn't...
他们正在使用这片土地
They were using it.
是的，根据洛克的定义，你可以说
Yes. By Locke's definition, you can say...
因此，也许在洛克的定义里， 印第安人
So maybe by Locke's definition, the Native Americans
也可以宣称拥有这块土地的所有权
could have claimed a property right in the land itself.
是的，但正如她所说，他们只是没有站在洛克一边，
Right, but they just didn't have Locke on their side, as she points out.
好，很好。再来一个洛克的辩护者。请
All right, good. Okay, that's good. One more defender of Locke. Go ahead.
我的意思是，为了捍卫洛克
Well, I mean, just to defend Locke,
他的确说过，有些时候
he does say that there are some times in which
你不能拿走别人的土地
you can't take another person's land.
例如，你不能拿走公有土地
For example, you can't acquire a land that is common property so people,
对美洲的印第安人来说，我感觉他们已经建立了
in terms of the American Indians, I feel like they already have
他们自己的文明，他们共同使用着这块土地
civilizations themselves and they were using land in common.
那么，这有点像是他说过的
So it's kind of like what an analogy to what he was talking about
英国人共有财产的一个类比。你不能拿走
with like the common English property. You can't take land that
大家共同享有的土地
everybody is sharing in common.
噢，很有趣，那很有趣
Oh, that's interesting. That's interesting.
还有，你不能拿走土地，除非你确保
And also, you can't take land unless you make sure
还有足够多的土地供其他人使用
that there is as much land as possible left for other people to take as well.
因此 如果打算拿走公有土地，你必须确保
So if you're taking common, so you have to make sure
还有足够多的剩余土地
that whenever you take land that there is enough left
供他人使用……- 对
for other people to use... - Right.
而且，剩下的土地和你拿走的土地是一样好的……
...that's just as good as the land that you took, so...
没错，洛克说过，私有财产权必须得
That's true. Locke says there has to be this right
确保有足够多、足够好的留给其他人
to private property in the earth is subject to the provision
你叫什么名字？
that there be as much and as good left for others. What's your name?
对，我叫Feng
Right. I'm Feng.
Feng，在某种程度上你也同意Dan
So Feng, in a way, agrees with Dan that maybe there is
在洛克的框架内
a claim within Locke's framework that could be developed on behalf
也许美洲原住民。下面的问题是
of the Native Americans. Here is the further question.
如果私有财产权是与生俱来的，而不是约定俗成的
If the right to private property is natural, not conventional,
如果它是在政府出现之前，我们就拥有的
if it's something that we acquire even before we agree to government,
那么，这种权利如何限制合法政府能做的事情呢？
how does that right constrain what a legitimate government can do?
最后，为了看看洛克究竟是自由主义
In order, finally, to see whether Locke is an ally
的支持者，还是潜在的批评者
or potentially a critic of the libertarian idea of the state,
我们得问，我们一旦进入了社会
we have to ask what becomes of our natural rights
什么将成为我们的自然权利？
once we enter into society.
我们知道，我们进入社会是经过大家的同意、协议
We know that the way we enter into society is by consent, by agreement
以脱离自然状态，并被大多数人
to leave the state of nature and to be governed by the majority
被法律体系、人类制定的法律所管辖
and by a system of laws, human laws.
但这些法律，只有在尊重我们的自然权利
But those human laws are only legitimate
尊重我们不可分割的生命、自由和财产权的条件下
if they respect our natural rights, if they respect our unalienable rights
才是合法的。没有哪个议会或立法机构
to life, liberty, and property. No parliament, no legislature,
不论它是多么民主，都不能侵犯
however democratic its credentials, can legitimately violate
我们的自然权利
our natural rights.
没有法律可以侵犯我们的生命权、自由权和财产权
This idea that no law can violate our right to life, liberty, and property
这似乎是支持有限政府的
would seem to support the idea of a government so limited
所以，很讨自由主义者的欢心
that it would gladden the heart of the libertarian after all.
但是自由主义者却不该高兴得这么早
But those hearts should not be so quickly gladdened because
即使对洛克来说，国家建立之后
even though for Locke, the law of nature persists
自然法则依然存在，尽管洛克坚持有限政府
once government arrives, even though Locke insists
政府要受限于创建它的人
on limited government, government limited by the end
即保护我们的财产不受侵犯
for which it was created, namely the preservation of property,
即便如此，这里还有一个关键点：怎么才算是我的财产
even so, there is an important sense in which what counts as my property,
怎样才算尊重我的生命和自由权？
what counts as respecting my life and liberty
而这是由政府来界定的
are for the government to define.
哪些属于财产权，怎么才算尊重生命权和自由权
That there be property, that there be respect
这些是限制政府的所在
for life and liberty is what limits government.
但是，怎样才算尊重我的生命和财产权
But what counts as respecting my life and respecting my property,
却是由政府来决定和定义的
that is for governments to decide and to define.
怎么会这样呢？
How can that be?
洛克不是在自打嘴巴么？还是说这里有一个
Is Locke contradicting himself or is there an important
重要的区别？
distinction here?
为了回答这个问题，这决定了洛克究竟是否与
In order to answer that question, which will decide Locke's fit
自由主义的观点一致，我们需要仔细研究
with the libertarian view, we need to look closely
洛克所指的合法政府是什么样的？
at what legitimate government looks like for Locke,
我们将在下一次探讨
and we turn to that next time.
收入就好像鞋子：太小了会挤脚，太大了会摔跤。---约翰洛克
"Our incomes are like our shoes: if too small, they gall and pinch us;
but if too large, they cause us to stumble and to trip." ---John Locke
上一次 我们开始讨论洛克所说的自然状态
Last time, we began to discuss Locke's state of nature,
他的私有财产的观点，他的合法政府理论
his account of private property, his theory of legitimate government,
即政府是基于人们的同意而设立，以及有限政府
which is government based on consent and also limited government.
洛克相信一些基本权利限制了
Locke believes in certain fundamental rights that constrain
什么是政府可以做的
what government can do, and he believes that those rights
洛克相信，这些权利是自然权利，而不是靠法律
are natural rights, not rights that flow from law
或政府来赋予
or from government.
洛克的哲学实验就是看看
And so Locke's great philosophical experiment
他能否提供一种理由来解释，
is to see if he can give an account of how there could be a right
在政府和立法会议员出现之前
to private property without consent before government and legislators
为什么就有财产权
arrive on the scene to define property.
这就是他的问题，也是他的主张
That's his question. That's his claim.
洛克认为，建立产权有一种方法
There is a way Locke argues to create property,
不仅是采摘、打猎所得属于我们
not just in the things we gather and hunt,
还包括土地本身，只要我们给其他人留下了
but in the land itself, provided there is enough
足够多、足够好的土地
and as good left for others.
今天，我想谈谈关于同意的问题
Today, I want to turn to the question of consent,
这是洛克的第二个想法
which is Locke's second big idea.
私人财产是其中一个，同意是另一个
Private property is one; consent is the other.
同意的作用是什么？
What is the work of consent?
这里已经有人提到过同意
People here have been invoking the idea of consent
自从一开始，从第一个星期开始
since we began since the first week.
你们还记得我们在（第1集）讨论
Do you remember when we were talking about
将桥上的胖子推下桥（来救活5个工人）时，有人说
pushing the fat man off the bridge, someone said,
“但他没有同意去牺牲自己”
"But he didn't agree to sacrifice himself.
如果他同意的话，情况就不同了“
It would be different if he consented."
或当我们讨论到是否（也是第1集）
Or when we were talking about the cabin boy,
杀死并吃掉船上那个男孩时
killing and eating the cabin boy.
有些人说 “嗯，如果他们都同意抽签
Some people said, "Well, if they had consented
情况就会不一样
to a lottery, it would be different.
（经过同意）那样就可以（杀掉那个男孩）
Then it would be all right."
因此，同意这个词已经出现了很多次。而关于同意这个问题，
So consent has come up a lot and here in John Locke,
洛克是其中一位大哲学家之一
we have one of the great philosophers of consent.
同意，是道德哲学和政治哲学里
Consent is an obvious familiar idea in moral
是一个很明显、很熟悉的概念
and political philosophy.
洛克说，合法政府是建立在同意的基础上的
Locke says that legitimate government is government founded
今天，有谁不同意他的观点？
on consent and who, nowadays, would disagree with him?
有时候，当政治哲学家的思想
Sometimes, when the ideas of political philosophers
跟“同意”这个概念一样熟悉的时候
are as familiar as Locke's ideas about consent,
我们就很难理解它，或至少觉得它很有趣
it's hard to make sense of them or at least to find them very interesting.
但，作为合法政府存在的基础——同意
But there are some puzzles, some strange features
洛克对这个概念的解释，有些让人疑惑
of Locke's account of consent
让人觉得奇怪
as the basis of legitimate government
而这就是我今天要讨论的
and that's what I'd like to take up today.
验证洛克的“同意论”是否合理
One way of testing the plausibility of Locke's idea
并同时探讨这些困惑的一个方法就是看看
of consent and also of probing some of its perplexities
基于同意而建立的合法政府
is to ask just what a legitimate government
能够做什么
founded on consent can do, what are its powers
它有什么权力
according to Locke.
为了回答这个问题
Well, in order to answer that question,
回想自然状态是什么样的
it helps to remember what the state of nature is like.
