洛克能否自圆其说，或者说他基本上
Does Locke have a way out of this or is he basically
认可一个全能的政府
sanctioning an all-powerful government,
可以不顾，他所说的不可分割的权利呢？
despite everything he says about unalienable rights?
他能自圆其说吗？
Does he have a way out of it? Who would speak here
谁来为洛克辩护？ 或者为这个困境找出出路？
in defense of Locke or make sense, find a way out of this predicament?
-我 -好，请说
Yes. - All right, go ahead.
我认为那是有区别的
I feel like there is a general distinction we made between
个人拥有的生命权
the right to life that individuals possess
与政府不能剥夺
and the fact that the government cannot take away
某个特定个体的生命权，两者是有区别的
a single individual's right to life.
我认为，如果你把征兵看成是政府在挑选
I think if you look at conscription as the government picking out
特定的个人去参战的话。那这就侵犯了
certain individuals to go fight in war, then that would be a violation
他们天赋的生命权。另一方面
of their natural right to life. On the other hand,
如果征兵，比方说是用抽签的方式
if you have conscription, let's say a lottery for example,
这时候，我觉得那是人民大众在选出
then in that case I would view that as the population picking
他们的代表去参战，以捍卫他们的权利
their representatives to defend them in the case of war,
整个思路是不可能全部人
the idea being that since the whole population
都一起冲上去，去捍卫各自的财产权利
cannot go out there to defend its own right to property,
它通过一个真正随机的程序，选择自己的代表
it picks its own representatives through a process that's essentially random
然后，这些随机选出的代表
and then these sort of elected representatives
站出来，去为人们的权利而战
go out and fight for the rights of the people.
这种方式很像，就像是
It works very similar, it works just like
民选政府那样，在我看来
an elected government, in my opinion.
好的，所以一个民选政府可以征用它的公民
All right, so an elected government can conscript citizens
站出来去捍卫他们的生活
to go out and defend the way of life,
从而能继续享有他们的权利？
the community that makes the enjoyment of rights possible?
我认为是的。因为对我而言，它非常类似于
I think it can because to me, it seems that it's very similar
选举立法代表的过程
to the process of electing representatives for legislature.
虽然，这里就像是政府
Although here, it's as if the government
在通过征兵选出一些公民送死
is electing by conscription certain citizens to go die
出于群体的利益
for the sake of the whole. Is that consistent with respect
这与尊重自由权利，相符吗？
for a natural right to liberty?
唔，我想说的是，这是有区别的
Well, what I would say there is there is a distinction
挑选特定个体和
between picking out individuals and having a random
随机挑选个体。就像
choice of individuals. Like ...
挑选……让我想想……
Between picking out... let me make sure,
挑选个体，让我…… -你叫什么名字？
between picking out individuals, let me... what's your name?
Gokul.
Gokul.
Gokul.说，那是有区别的，挑选特定个体
Gokul says there's a difference between picking out individuals
让他们放弃生命和随机选取之间，是有区别的
to lay down their lives and having a general law.
我认为这就是洛克将会给出的答案，实际上，Gokul
I think this is the answer Locke would give, actually, Gokul.
洛克是反对专制政府的
Locke is against arbitrary government.
他反对专制，反对指定由比尔·盖茨
He is against the arbitrary taking, the singling out of Bill Gates
去资助伊拉克战争
to finance the war in Iraq. He is against singling out
他反对指定某个公民或者某个群体
a particular citizen or group of people
去战斗。但是，如果有一个通用法
to go off and fight. But if there is a general law
可以让政府的选择
such that the government's choice,
让多数派的行为变得不是专制
the majority's action is non-arbitrary,
那就不算是对个人基本权利的侵犯
it doesn't really amount to a violation of people's basic rights.
专制掠夺才算是侵犯
What does count as a violation is an arbitrary taking
因为专制掠夺，本质上是说，不仅侵犯了比尔·盖茨
because that would essentially say, not only to Bill Gates,
还侵犯了每一个人。因为不存在法治
but to everyone, there is no rule of law.
没有产权制度。因为国王可以为所欲为
There is no institution of property. Because at the whim of the king,
或者说，国会（可以为所欲为）
or for that matter, of the parliament,
可以指定你，或者你，放弃自己的财产
we can name you or you to give up your property
或者放弃你的生命。但是只要有一个
or to give up your life. But so long as there is
非专制的规定。那么这种行为就是允许的
a non-arbitrary rule of law, then it's permissible.
现在，你也许会说，这并不算是真正的有限政府
Now, you may say this doesn't amount to a very limited government,
而自由主义者也会抱怨
and the libertarian may complain that Locke is not
洛克不是一个忠实的好盟友。
such a terrific ally after all.
自由主义者对洛克的失望有两点：
The libertarian has two grounds for disappointment in Locke.
第一，权利是不可分割的，因此
First, that the rights are unalienable and therefore,
我根本没有真正地拥有自己
I don't really own myself after all.
我不能用违反我的权利的方式来
I can't dispose of my life or my liberty or my property
处置我的生命、我的自由、我的财产。这是失望之一
in a way that violates my rights. That's disappointment number one.
失望之二，一旦经过同意而建立了合法政府
Disappointment number two, once there is a legitimate government
对洛克来说，其唯一的限制
based on consent, the only limits for Locke
就是限制对人的生命、自由和财产的任意掠夺。
are limits on arbitrary takings of life or of liberty or of property.
但如果多数派决定，如果多数派颁布
But if the majority decides, if the majority promulgates
一个普遍适用的法律，并且是经过一个恰当的
a generally applicable law and if it votes duly according
公平程序，那样就不是侵犯
to fair procedures, then there is no violation,
不管是征税，还是征兵。
whether it's a system of taxation or a system of conscription.
所以，很显然，洛克担心的是
So it's clear that Locke is worried
国王的绝对专权。
about the absolute arbitrary power of kings,
但同时，这里也确实存在
but it's also true, and here is the
洛克，这个伟大的“同意论”者，的局限
darker side of Locke, that this great theorist of consent
随之而来的是私有制理论
came up with a theory of private property
它不需要同意
that didn't require consent that may,
这可以回到上次Rochelle的观点
and this goes back to the point Rochelle made last time,
可能和洛克的第二关注点有关
may have had something to do with Locke's second concern,
那就是美国
which was America.
你们应该记得，当他谈到
You remember, when he talks about
自然状态，他不是在谈论
the state of nature, he is not talking about
一个假想的地方。他说，“起初
an imaginary place. "In the beginning," he says,
“整个范畴是美国。” 在美国发生了什么？
"All the world was America." And what was going on in America?
殖民者在圈地，并且和
The settlers were enclosing land and engaged in wars
印第安人发生了战争。
with the Native Americans.
洛克，身为一个殖民地的长官
Locke, who was an administrator of one of the colonies,
可能乐于为私有制开脱
may have been as interested in providing a justification
即通过未经同意的圈地
for private property through enclosure without consent
通过圈地和耕种（而取得私有财产）。当时他正在设想一个
through enclosure and cultivation, as he was with developing a theory
基于同意的政府理论，从而可以限制国王
of government based on consent that would rein in kings
和专制统治者
and arbitrary rulers.
我们剩下的问题，最根本的问题就是
The question we're left with, the fundamental question
我们仍然没有回答，到底什么成为了我们的同意？
we still haven't answered is what then becomes of consent?
它能起什么作用？ 它的道德力量是什么？
What work can it do? What is its moral force?
同意的限制性是什么？ 同意不仅关乎到
What are the limits of consent? Consent matters not only
政府，也关系到市场
for governments, but also for markets.
下一次开始，我们将会分析
And beginning next time, we're going to take up questions
在商品买卖时，同意的限制问题。
of the limits of consent in the buying and selling of goods.
英文字幕：
http://forum-network.org
xiaolai
中文字幕：
psjmz
葵西
hnugcx
校对：
何_何
欢迎接着收看
耶鲁心理学入门课程
http://u.youku.com/aprilseason
?1
雇来的枪手
Hired Guns
在上一讲结束时，我们讨论到洛克关于
When we ended last time, we were discussing
在同意基础上所建立的政府，问题就出来了
Locke's idea of government by consent and the question arose,
“是什么限制了政府的权力，
"What are the limits on government that even the agreement
使得即便多数人同意，也不能侵犯它？”
of the majority can't override?"
这是我们上次结束时的问题
That was the question we ended with.
我们讨论了财产权的问题
We saw in the case of property rights
以洛克的观点来看，由民主选举出来的政府
that on Locke's view a democratically elected government
有权向人民征税
has the right to tax people.
政府征税应经过人民的同意
It has to be taxation with consent
因为这的确涉及到，为了公共利益
because it does involve the taking of people's property
而拿走个人的财产。然而征税的时候
for the common good but it doesn't require the consent
并没要求征求每个独立个体的意见
of each individual at the time the tax is enacted or collected.
它只要求人们在进入社会前
What it does require is a prior act of consent
要事先征求同意，并承担一些政治义务
to join the society, to take on the political obligation
而一旦你承担了这些义务，你就同意了接受多数人的约束
but once you take on that obligation, you agree to be bound by the majority.
这些就是关于征税的讨论。但你也许会问
So much for taxation. But what you may ask,
对于生命权又会怎样？政府可以征兵
about the right to life? Can the government conscript people
并把人们送到战场么？
and send them into battle?
又如何解释我们拥有自己这一观点？（上一集讨论过的观点）
And what about the idea that we own ourselves?
如果政府能够通过强制立法和执行其权力
Isn't the idea of self-possession violated if the government can,
这不是违背了我们拥有自己吗？
through coercive legislation and enforcement powers, say
例如政府说，“你要冒生命危险去打伊拉克”
"You must go risk your life to fight in Iraq."
洛克会怎么说？
What would Locke say?
政府是否有权这样做？
Does the government have the right to do that?
是的，事实上他在第139节说到
Yes. In fact he says in 139, he says,
“重要的是政治机关或军事当局
"What matters is that the political authority or the military authority
不是专制的，这是问题的关键”
