without great charge.
政府是昂贵的，因而让所有
Government is expensive and it's fit that everyone
享受保护的人们
who enjoys his share of the protection
为其财产的交费是合理的。”
should pay out of his estate."
接着这里有一句关键的话：“然而，这仍然
And then here is the crucial line. "But still, it must be
需要征得他们的同意，也就是，大多数人的同意，
with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority,
这个同意通过他们自己
giving it either by themselves,
或他们的代表来表达。” 所以洛克究竟想说什么？
or through their representatives." So what is Locke actually saying?
在某种意义上，财产是自然的，但在另一意义上，它又是约定俗成的
Property is natural in one sense but conventional in another.
我们享有拥有财产权这一
It's natural in the sense that we have a fundamental
基本的、不可剥夺的权利的意义上，它是自然的
unalienable right that there be property,
存在着财产权
that the institution of property exist and be respected
政府应当尊重
by the government.
任意地夺取财物将被视作是违反了
So an arbitrary taking of property would be a violation
自然法则，它是违法的。
of the law of nature and would be illegitimate.
但是问题在于
But it's a further question, here is the conventional
财产的约定俗称这一方面，我们问题在于
aspect of property, it's a further question
什么算作是财产，它是怎样被定义的，以及
what counts as property, how it's defined and what counts
什么算是夺取财产，这些取决于政府
as taking property, and that's up to the government.
所以，这里存在着“同意”，我们回到了
So the consent, here, we're coming back
我们的问题，同意的作用是什么？
to our question, what is the work of consent?
税收的合法性就在于
What it takes for taxation to be legitimate
它是经过同意的，不是由比尔·盖茨他自己同意的，
is that it be by consent, not the consent of Bill Gates himself
（假设他就是那个要付税的）
if he is the one who has to pay the tax,
而是由他和我们，这个社会所有的成员，
but by the consent that he and we,
在一开始脱离自然状态
all of us within the society, gave when we emerged
并且建立政府时
from the state of nature and created the government
给出的同意。这是一个集体性的同意。
in the first place. It's the collective consent.
这样解读起来，似乎同意
And by that reading, it looks like consent is doing
成了事情的全部，而经过同意所建立的有限政府
a whole lot and the limited government consent creates
也不完全是有限的。
isn't all that limited.
有人想对此做个回应，或对此有什么疑问吗？
Does anyone want to respond to that or have a question about that?
请，站起来。
Go ahead. Stand up.
嗯，我只是在想，洛克会什么看下面这种情况
Well, I'm just wondering what Locke's view is on
假如，一开始政府就存在
once you have a government that's already in place,
那么，对于出生在其中的人们而言，
whether it is possible for people who are born
是否还有可能离开，并且回归到自然状态吗？
into that government to then leave and return
我是说，我认为
to the state of nature? I mean, I don't think
洛克并没有提过了这种清况……
that Locke mentioned that at all in the...
你认为呢？
What do you think?
嗯，我认为，照惯例看来，要脱离政府
Well, I think, as the convention, it would be very difficult to leave
是很困难的，因为你不再是...
the government because you are no longer,
因为没人可以只生活在自然状态下
because nobody else is just living in the state of nature.
而让其他人被立法机关统治着
Everybody else is now governed by this legislature.
你是在想问，这在今天意味着什么，
What would it mean today, you're asking.
你叫什么？Nicola。
And what's your name? - Nicola.
Nicola，为了脱离某个状态，假设你要脱离
Nicola, to leave the state. Supposed you wanted to leave
当今的文明社会。你想要撤回你的同意
civil society today. You want to withdraw your consent
并且回归到自然状态。
and return to the state of nature.
嗯，因为你其实并没有给出“同意”。
Well, because you didn't actually consent to it.
你只是出生在其中。加入其中的是你的祖先。
You were just born into it. It was your ancestors who joined.
对，你没有在某个社会契约上签字。我没有在上面签字。
Right. You didn't sign the social contract. I didn't sign it.
的确。
Exactly.
好，那么洛克对此说了什么，是吗？
All right, so what does Locke say there? Yes?
我认为，洛克并没有说你必须签署任何东西。
I don't think Locke says you have to sign anything.
我想他所说的是那种默认的同意。
I think that he says that it's kind of implied consent.
默认的？
Implied?
享受政府的服务，就表示你默认
Taking government's services, you are implying that
你同意了政府
you are consenting to the government
从你那儿获取东西。
taking things from you.
好，默认同意，只是回答了这个答案
All right, so implied consent. That's a partial answer
一部分。现在，你也许会认为
to this challenge. Now, you may not think
默认同意，并不能等同于真正的同意
that implied consent is as good as the real thing.
这是你摇头的原因吗，Nicola？
Is that what you're shaking your head about, Nicola?
大声说出来。站起来，大声说
Speak up. Stand up and speak up.
我不认为，仅仅使用着政府的
I don't think that necessarily just by utilizing the government's
各方面的资源，我们就必然地默认了
various resources that we are necessarily implying that
我们认可这个政府产生的方式
we agree with the way that this government was formed
或表示我就同意真正地加入社会契约。
or that we have consented to actually join into the social contract.
所以，你认为默认同意
So you don't think the idea of implied consent
不足以产生任何服从政府的
is strong enough to generate any obligation at all to obey
义务？
the government?
对，不必然产生。
Not necessarily, no.
Nicola，如果你知道你不会被逮捕
Nicola, if you didn't think you'd get caught,
你还会纳税吗？
would you pay your taxes?
我不会。在我个人看来，我更希望有一个系统
I don't think so. I would rather have a system, personally,
那样我可以只付钱给那些
that I could give money to exactly those sections
我支持的政府部门
of the government that I support
而不是所有的部门
and not just blanket support of it.
你更喜欢生活在自然状态
You'd rather be in the state of nature,
至少在4月15号这天（美国税务申报截止日期）
at least on April 15th.
但是我想知道的是，你是否认为
But what I'm trying to get at is do you consider that
因为事实上你没有作出任何形式的同意
you are under no obligation, since you haven't actually entered
所以你没有任何的义务，但为了保险起见
into any act of consent, but for prudential reasons,
你还是依法行事？
you do what you're supposed to do according to the law?
没错
Exactly.
如果你这么想，就违背了洛克的另一个论点
If you look at it that way, then you're violating another one
那就是，你不能从其他人那里拿走任何东西
of Locke's treatises, which is that you can't take
例如，你不能只享受政府的服务
anything from anyone else. Like, you can't take the government's
而不付出任何回报
services and then not give them anything in return.
如果你想回到自然状态。那没关系
If you want to go live in the state of nature, that's fine,
但你能从政府那里拿走任何东西
but you can't take anything from the government
因为根据政府的条款，也是唯一的条款
because by the government's terms, which are the only terms
在你同意的情况下
under which you can enter the agreement,
要求你必须纳税才能获得那些东西
say that you have to pay taxes to take those things.
所以，你是说Nicola可以回到自然状态，如果她愿意
So you are saying that Nicola can go back into the state of nature
但她就不能在麻省街道上开车了
if she wants to but she can't drive on Mass. Ave.?
没错
Exactly.
我想讨论，街道使用权以外的问题
I want to raise the stakes beyond using Mass. Ave.
征税以外的问题
and even beyond taxation.
怎么看生命权？怎么看征兵的问题
What about life? What about military conscription?
好，你怎么看？站起来
Yes, what do you say? Stand up.
首先，我们要弄清楚，把人送上战场
First of all, we have to remember that sending people to war
并不意味着他们一定会死
is not necessarily implying that they'll die.
我是说，去战场显然也不会提高生存几率
I mean, obviously, you're not raising their chances here
但也不等于是死刑
but it's not a death penalty.
因此，如果你要讨论
So if you're going to discuss whether or not
征兵是否等同于压制了人的生命权
military conscription is equivalent to suppressing
你不该这么想。
people's right to life, you shouldn't approach it that way.
其次，真正的问题在于，洛克
Secondly, the real problem here is Locke has this view
关于同意和自然权利的观点。不允许人们放弃
about consent and natural rights. But you're not allowed to give up
自己的自然权利，即便是自愿的。所以，真正的问题是
your natural rights either. So the real question is
他如何自圆其说，
how does he himself figure it out between
当人们谈到征税或者征兵问题时，
"I agree to give up my life, give up my property"
他怎么解释 “我同意放弃我的生命，放弃我的财产”
when he talks about taxes or military conscription for the fact.
我想，洛克是反对自杀的
But I guess Locke would be against suicide,
虽然那是经过我自己的意愿，我同意取下我的性命。
and that's still my own consent. I agree by taking my life.
好，不错，好的，你叫什么？ -Eric
All right, good. All right, what's your name? - Eric.
Eric说出了，在我们读洛克的时候
So Eric brings us back to the puzzle we've been wrestling with
一直困惑我们的难题，
since we started reading Locke.
一方面，我们有这些不可分割的权利
On the one hand, we have these unalienable rights
生命权、自由权和财产权，那意味着即使我们自己
to life, liberty, and property, which means that even we
也没有放弃它们的权利
don't have the power to give them up,
而正是这些权利限制了合法政府
and that's what creates the limits on legitimate government.
这不是说，我们同意这些来限制政府
It's not what we consent to that limits government.
而是连我们自己也不能放弃
It's what we lack the power to give away
这些用来限制政府的权利
when we consent that limits government.
这就洛克的核心观点
That's the point at the heart of Locke's whole account
关于合法政府（的核心观点）
of legitimate government.
但现在，你说，“好，既然我们都不能放弃自己的生命”
But now, you say, "well, if we can't give up our own life,
既然我们都不能自杀，既然我们都不能放弃自己的财产权
if we can't commit suicide, if we can't give up our right
我们怎么能够同意
to property, how can we then agree
接受多数派的限制，迫使我们
to be bound by a majority that will force us to sacrifice
牺牲生命或者放弃财产呢？（即纳税和服兵役）
our lives or give up our property"?
